« The Old Girl's New Tricks, Part VIII | Main | Lefty Tolerance: "We Hated Reagan" »

The Smartest Man In The Room

Well, we now know just went into President Obama's decision to wage UnWar on Libya, and how he planned to deal with the implications of the War Powers Resolution.

And the short answer is: because he said so.

When he was considering the move, he went to the two top experts on the subject for their advice: the highest-ranking attorneys at the Department of Defense and the Justice Departmant. And they agreed: what Obama planned was covered by the War Powers Resolution.

So he did what a lot of people do when told that what they want to do is illegal: he went lawyer-shopping until he found some who would tell him what he wanted to hear.

It's almost fascinating to listen to the spin being presented on why the law didn't apply here. It boils down to "it's not a war, because they're not shooting back."

If this sounds familiar, it's because it's a version of the old story about the parent asking who started the fight -- and one kid says "it started when he hit me back."

Apparently, it's only "war-war" when both sides do the fighting. When it's just us dropping bombs and missiles on a foreign nation that is incapable of posing a credible threat in return, it's just a form of foreign aid. "What's the big deal? We give lots of countries bombs and missiles. This time, they're just blowing up a bit sooner than they'd like."

I'm sure it's a great comfort to those people being blown up that they aren't dying in a war-war.

As I've said, there's a good debate to be had over the War Powers Resolution. I have genuinely mixed feelings on the matter, but I recognize that both sides have their points and it's a complicated issue.

Ever since it was passed, the War Powers Resolution has been a pain in the backside for every president. And they've all (to various degrees) found a way to deal with it. They comply with it, but don't acknowledge its authority -- giving the necessary reports as "consistent with" the Resolution, and not "pursuant to." They've also sought Congressional approval for their warlike actions, again saying that they want the support of Congress and the American people on such an important matter -- and not saying they're doing it because the War Powers Resolution made them.

Any of them could have challenged it directly, and that would have been interesting to resolve. All they had to say was that the War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional, they had no intention of abiding by it, and then tossing the ball back in Congress' court.

But neither of those work for Obama. For one, as Obama has argued before, "he won." That means he gets to rule unchallenged.

For another, he has a record of speaking out strongly in favor of the War Powers Resolution -- when he was a US Senator and the president in question was Republican George W. Bush (who abided by it, without ever officially recognizing its authority).

So he decides that it doesn't apply here simply because he says so. And when the experts on such matters tell him it does, he goes and finds other people willing to tell him what he wants to hear.

That's one of the things about being president. One can usually find someone willing to tell you what you want to hear. What they need are people willing to tell them no, to say what they don't want to hear.

But that type of honesty seems to be unwanted in the Obama administration.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41805.

Comments (41)

Liberals don't need the law... (Below threshold)
recovered liberal democrat:

Liberals don't need the law. They don't need a majority. They only need to be louder. All they need is an idea based on emotion. "Emotion noun: an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness". Webster knew liberals I guess. More to prove my case.
I saw this yesterday at Drudge and laughed. I was joking on another post that Weiner had a career path to follow as a loud, screeching, hypocrital, liberal.
"Keith Olbermann hints at Anthony Weiner talk show on Al Gore's network". Do I know liberals? Yes,I do.

Honesty? THIS administrati... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Honesty? THIS administration? The same one that for all intents FURNISHED weapons to drug cartels?

You didn't finish that. Th... (Below threshold)
jim m:

You didn't finish that. This administration furnished weapons to Mexican drug cartels for the purpose of allowing them to be used in murders so the administration could campaign to impose restrictive gun laws based on the crimes those weapons were used in.

This administration knows no law. It understands only force and will use that force to achieve whatever purpose it desires. Beware 2012. This admin could very well try to postpone or invalidate an election.

Just more proof why Obama a... (Below threshold)
TaterSalad:

Just more proof why Obama and Ka-Daffy are the same narcissistic, self centered rulers of their countries. Times sure have changed since Obama was in "election mode" and now. Mr. Flip-Flop has this BS down pat now. Pathetic!

According to Ace (http://ac... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

According to Ace (http://ace.mu.nu/), via the NYT, even Obama's Attorney General supported the attorney's view and opposed Obama's desired interpretation. Nice.

From the article:<blo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

From the article:

. . . Mr. Obama . . . is a constitutional lawyer . . .

Uhmm, no, he's not. He hasn't had an active law license for years. There's nothing indicating that he practiced "Constitutional Law" during his very brief stint with a law firm. He lectured "Constitutional Law" for a while, but at the same time was lecturing in many other subjects.

As far as being the smartest person in the room:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/06/020784.php

All those lawyers report to... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:

All those lawyers report to the President of the United States. POTUS is the one who has the job of making the decisions. The various lawyers have the responsibility of providing their advice and counsel to the POTUS, but when it comes time to make a decision, it is not made by one of the lawyers, or by a vote of the various lawyers. The POTUS makes the call, as that is his job.

Think of another analogous situation: his role as commander in chief. He will take the advise of his military commanders, but at the end of the day, he is the one that is responsible for making the correct decision, and it is his to make. He may believe that his generals are giving him sound advice, or he may feel the best decision is a different one.

There is plenty to criticise Obama for, including this decision on the merits themselves. But, his decision to make his own decision is not eveidence of an abuse of office or of the law.

Its all so 'nuanced' with B... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

Its all so 'nuanced' with Barry. He needs no 'joint' authorization because like his buddy Lurch, he fights war in a more intelligent thoughtful manner.

Boosh raided houses in the middle of the night. Barry does it in the middle of the day. BIG difference.

A much less violent crafted kinetic battle of wills which we should all rally behind including KDuffy,. After all, he is a scholar and he won the Nobel without even trying.

Jay, can we cross-post this... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Jay, can we cross-post this on Antiwar.com ?

Justin Raimondo is interested in right-wing war opponents.

It's no wonder that obama h... (Below threshold)
jim m:

It's no wonder that obama has such a hard time saying things against leaders like Assad, Gaddafi, Chavez etc. He feels too much affinity toward them. They rule over their countries in the way that he desires to rule over the United States.

this may yet lead to the <b... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

this may yet lead to the Fall of the House of Obama

http://bejohngalt.com/2011/06/the-fall-of-the-house-of-obama/

and the House of Obama DESERVES to fall!

This is pathetic. He needs... (Below threshold)
Jer:

This is pathetic. He needs to be ousted.

Chico - I think it's more a... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Chico - I think it's more anti-situation than anti-war. Obama decided he didn't need to conform to the established rules. But the rules apply to all, regardless of party or popularity... Or at least they should.

Do I support getting rid of kadaffi and helping the rebels? Sure do. Let's do it the right way, though, and follow the laws we've established for these sorts of situations.

No, Chico. Because as Jlaws... (Below threshold)

No, Chico. Because as Jlawson says, I'm not anti-war. I think this particular one was incredibly stupid and short-sighted and the wrong course, but I'm a big believer in "in it to win it."

Which is apparently another area where I differ from Obama, who apparently has no real interest in actually achieving anything, just to keep up the bombing and hoping something good will happen...

J.

"But, his decision to make ... (Below threshold)
boqueronman:

"But, his decision to make his own decision is not eveidence of an abuse of office or of the law." Bwahahaha! A 100% pure one sentence illustration of the Proglodyte credo: if my guy decides to decide to do it... it's OK! Unbeluckinfeebable!

"But, his decision... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:
"But, his decision to make his own decision is not eveidence of an abuse of office or of the law." Bwahahaha! A 100% pure one sentence illustration of the Proglodyte credo: if my guy decides to decide to do it... it's OK! Unbeluckinfeebable!

You are a fucking idiot if you think the POTUS has to submit to the judgement of the AG. The relationship works the other way around. The POTUS decides the policy of the executive branch, in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the USA. It is not the AG who gets to force his interpretation on POTUS, but the POTUS who gets to have his interpretation accepted by his subordinates. If they disagree with him, they can always resign, as has happened in the past.

You also has some serious reading comprehension difficulties if you think that Obama is "my guy", or that my post is supportive of him. In the sentence immediately proceeding the one you quoted, I said:

There is plenty to criticise Obama for, including this decision on the merits themselves.

You get that? Obama made the wrong decision in going to war in Libya, at least in his choice of bypassing Congress and the American people. But, he wasn't wrong just because he failed to agree with Eric "Let's Try Them in NY" Holder. He was wrong because his own view of the constitution is wrong.

This kind of shit makes my ... (Below threshold)
CZ:

This kind of shit makes my head explode.

"just to keep up the bombin... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"just to keep up the bombing and hoping something good will happen..."

Wagging the dog so to speak in the hopes that attention will be drawn off the misery index so he can play golf in peace.

And I thought wagging the weiner was pathetic when it was just about sex. This is even more pathetic.

Anonymous"POTUS de... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Anonymous

"POTUS decides the policy of the executive branch, in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the USA. "

When you have lawyers saying shit is illegal chances are it is.

But when you have presidents having lawyers tell them shit is legal than the left's head explode. Think Bush - Enhanced interrogation techniques.

When you have lawy... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:
When you have lawyers saying shit is illegal chances are it is.

When it comes to the WPA, there is no settled law; you can get some of the most respected lawyers in the country on both all sides of the issue. Some think it is perfectly constitutional, some think that it's an unconstitutional restriction on the POTUS, still others think that it unconstitutionally gives POTUS too much power. My own view is that the latter is correct.

All this argument that because AG Holder made the call one way, that that means that Obama is locked into following Holder's interpretation is completely misguided. The role of the AG in that kind of circumstance is to offer his best advise to the POTUS. The POTUS's job is to weigh that advise and then make the decision that he feels is the right one and in line with his oath of office.

Ronald Reagan makes the poi... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:

Ronald Reagan makes the point that he was not bound by the War Powers Act. The YouTube clip does not get into the ins and out of what all the different lawyers in his administration thought, but I'm sure that he had views on all sides of the issue. Then Reagan decided. And, he was held accountable by those who thought he was wrong.

I actually think, inspite o... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

I actually think, inspite of any war powers imbroglio, Libya is one conflict we should have entered, in order to avoid the massacre of Benghaz.

However, this notion that because the other side is not fighting back it is not a war is rediculous. It certainly is for those being bombed and just as specious that the innocent victims of our drone attacks, which have substantially increased under Obama, were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As John Cole (not to confused with Juan Cole) rants:


But this is the face of American policy in the Middle East. I know, I know, I’m an asshole and I hate Obama for pointing this out. This “hypothetical” and stories like it are happening every single day all over the Middle East in our forever war on terror. Maybe it wasn’t some poor sap on his porch having coffee. Maybe it was a wedding party. Maybe it was people on a convoy to a city. Maybe it was just some poor bastard “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” That statement always pisses me off- if someone drops a fucking bomb on me while I am in my house, how dare you tell me I am in the “wrong place?” Fuck you.

Maybe it was a 500lb bomb that went off the mark. Maybe it was a “precision” weapon that was a couple hundred yards off. Maybe the clowns at the CIA translated the address wrong or didn’t understand subtle nuances in the language (and we are short on translators because we hate gays as much as terrorists) and this was supposed to hit another side of town. Maybe someone was fed bad intel from a “trusted” source. Or maybe....

The <a href="http://www.bal... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The Balloon Juice correct link, from my previous comment.

Mr. Tea,Wars never... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Tea,

Wars never go as initially planned. Ones opponents are thinking human beings. On the tactical level, you can hunt them down... but if you give them half a chance, they will turn the tables and hunt you.

At the theater and strategic level, the longer a conflict goes on, the longer one's enemy has... to come up with a counter, or some way to strike back at their antagonist... and it doesn't have to be in a symmetrical or conventional way... the intent or purpose of such a strike doesn't have to achieve victory; it could be executed to boost the morale of one's side, or affect world opinion, or to win a propaganda coup... or even something else (the human mind can be very clever and creative when it comes to individual or group survival).

War is a grim, bloody, and ugly affair. In my humble opinion, Obama is taking huge risks in conducting it in the way he has as Commander-in-chief. We might get lucky and it will soon end with Quadaffy's defeat - much like what happened with Serbia in the Kosovo War under Clinton... where our side's casualties (including NATO's) were light.

But if it doesn't end soon, and NATO... and especially America, takes casualties... and particularly civilian casualties, then the kinetic rationale of our President completely falls apart. He would have to answer for such an event (or outcome) to the American people... and to put it mildly, that would have its own dynamics.

Wars end either in complete defeat of one side (surrender); or an armistice (a cease-fire which both sides agree upon), usually followed up by a formal agreement or peace treaty negotiations. No war in the history of the world has ever ended without these elements in place - i.e. - when one side of a conflict just kinetically decides it does.

Wonder who's advice our Commander-in-chief is listening to (if any) in this regard. This; the possible future trajectory of this war, with its attendant secondary and tertiary effects; as well as the final end-state or outcome - is something the citizens of the United States, myself included, are pondering.

Semper Fidelis-
Brucepall


Mr. Tea,Wars never... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Tea,

Wars never go as initially planned. Ones opponents are thinking human beings. On the tactical level, you can hunt them down... but if you give them half a chance, they will turn the tables and hunt you.

At the theater and strategic level, the longer a conflict goes on, the longer one's enemy has... to come up with a counter, or some way to strike back at their antagonist... and it doesn't have to be in a symmetrical or conventional way... the intent or purpose of such a strike doesn't have to achieve victory; it could be executed to boost the morale of one's side, or affect world opinion, or to win a propaganda coup... or even something else (the human mind can be very clever and creative when it comes to individual or group survival).

War is a grim, bloody, and ugly affair. In my humble opinion, Obama is taking huge risks in conducting it in the way he has as Commander-in-chief. We might get lucky and it will soon end with Quadaffy's defeat - much like what happened with Serbia in the Kosovo War under Clinton... where our side's casualties (including NATO's) were light.

But if it doesn't end soon, and NATO... and especially America, takes casualties... and particularly civilian casualties, then the kinetic rationale of our President completely falls apart. He would have to answer for such an event (or outcome) to the American people... and to put it mildly, that would have its own dynamics.

Wars end either in complete defeat of one side (surrender); or an armistice (a cease-fire which both sides agree upon), usually followed up by a formal agreement or peace treaty negotiations. No war in the history of the world has ever ended without these elements in place - i.e. - when one side of a conflict just kinetically decides it does.

Wonder who's advice our Commander-in-chief is listening to (if any) in this regard. This; the possible future trajectory of this war, with its attendant secondary and tertiary effects; as well as the final end-state or outcome - is something the citizens of the United States, myself included, are pondering.

Semper Fidelis-
Brucepall


My apologies of the inadver... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

My apologies of the inadvertent double post.

Which is apparently anot... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Which is apparently another area where I differ from Obama, who apparently has no real interest in actually achieving anything, just to keep up the bombing and hoping something good will happen...

Because it's about intentions, not actualities. That's one point where the left never seemed to make much of a connection - that ideas and intentions never come to fruition on their own, and that no matter how good their intentions, the thought of 'unanticipated consequences' just never seems to enter the equation.

JLawson, the 'law of unanti... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

JLawson, the 'law of unanticipated consequences policytrhat ends by achieving the exact opposite it was supposed to acheive is universal and affects the right as well as the left, when it tries to recreate the world.

Our invasion and removal of Saddam, a very mild threat to the West, increased by several magnitudes the clout and threat of its neighbor, Iran, a much more dangerous enemy for the West and its neigbors, than Iraq.

Juan Cole, with his 'unconstitututional threats' probable 'spying and smearing", made on his person by te CIA, reminds us that Ben Franklin (who was probably the smartest man in any room he was in, and much smarter than Obama), said when asked about the form of the new government, “A Republic– if you can keep it.”:

If the House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee is not interested in whether the Bush White House and the CIA broke the law by targeting an American author on US soil, then frankly we have an answer to Ben Franklin’s concerns; after the Constitutional Convention he is said to have been asked about the form of the new government and to have replied, “A Republic– if you can keep it.”
Kinetic Action, huh!... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Kinetic Action, huh!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'. Say it again!

Kinetic Action, huh!
Good God, y'all!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'!
Yes we can!

What the regime in Libya wa... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

What the regime in Libya wants to hear more than anything is a few voices in the U.S. who seem to be offering some unwilling support. Gaddafi believes that he can wait out the mission led by Britain and France, and the Ron Paul's only give him more hope when they unwillingly offer this dictator hope who has been implicated in terrorism such as bombing of the airliner over Scotland. What's next? Ron Paul and his supporters expressing regret over the killing of Osama Bin Laden and his likely successor by American efforts?

Going softcore on terrorists is complete bullshit. This administration has at least proven that they will use international policing efforts to bring down terrorists or their supporters like Gaddafi.

We're involved in Libya for... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

We're involved in Libya for only one reason; the Europeans are there. According to Barry's philosophy, if the Euro's are doing it, it's just got to be good.

Mr. Crickmore, As ... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Crickmore,

As for judgement and logic, as well as discernment of threats and universal truths, you wear some very strange cerebral blinders.
Take them off and see the world as it really is... it will improve your listening skills and help you to think clearly as well.

I can listen, and put myself in the shoes of others... thus giving them a chance to make their case. If that is empathy (such as it is)...then so be it. But I will never, ever, disregard what they have said, unless I have been there and worn their shoes or have some justification in my experience that tells me otherwise.

An example is in order. A member of my church told me that just because Hussein was shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone, that wasn't justification enough to go to war with his country (of Iraq). Oh, my. As I listened to him further, he was basically saying that he didn't see what was happening over Iraq on a almost daily basis as a threat to him or our country (after all - they hadn't brought one aircraft down yet- after years of trying). The first tact I took with him was to try and get him to empathize by wearing the shoes of an American aircrew... when he couldn't get there, I remarked... would you then agree, that ones discernment of a threat is directly proportional to ones proximity to it? And what do you know, I think he finally started to see a glimmer of light.

Steve, this thread of Jay's is really about having a discussion of the very serious matter of our war in Libya and how that war is being conducted on our behalf (yours and mine - and the rest of our nation too). Such a discussion really hasn't happened at the national level (through our elected Congressional representatives) as it should. And so this forum is a splendid way to begin such a discussion through our fellow citizens.

Thats the reality of whats really going on, and if you'd take off those blinders, you'd recognize whats at stake. So reign in those random thoughts of yours and focus... listen and think... and come back with questions and comments that are relevant to the enjoined discussion. Begin doing that and you will have much more moral authority and relevancy in this counsel forum.

Semper Fidelis-
Brucepall

PS. We know where Jay stands... his position is clear. You could start by at least acknowledging it, or come up with a coherent and logical rebuttal of his opinion and facts. Hell, start with me, if you think that would be an easier place to begin. What needs to change about the way our War in Libya is being conducted, if anything... and tell us why or why not. You got it in ya?


Mr. Hooson,Despoti... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Hooson,

Despotic regiems have been laughing up their sleeves at the arguments our republic has been having amongst her citizenry for centuries. They always think that this is an indication that we are worthless and weak as a nation (after all it doesn't happen that way in their countries).

They hold such a position right up to the time that their country and capitol is about to be overrun by such fickle weaklings; but by then, its to late. Just ask the Japanese, Italians or the Germans. And just because America is reluctant to engage in war compared to dictatorships, doesn't mean we will take endless abuse from them or their proxies. When we get our back up, American can make war like no other nation on the planet.

Given what I just said, who gives two figs what Gaddafi or his henchmen think or wants to believe or hear.

Semper Fidelis-
Brucepall

Brucepall, Congress can ha... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Brucepall, Congress can have the debate anytime they want to, but it's my understanding they don't really want it, including the House Republican leadership, since then they would be put put in "a damned if they do, damned if they don't" position, on supporting Obama's war or not. The GOP is probably more hawkish, in general, than the Dems on the war in Libya, but there is division in both parties' ranks.

The House of Comons in the UK, under the leadership of the Tories, had a free vote on going to war in Libya, and won by about 6 to 1.

By the way, the war is going quite well, so far and the cost to the US have been about just one billion dollars with casualties, not bad considering the War in Afghanistan-that would be a more debatable war for me, costs us two billion a week, not to mention the proliferation of drone attacks on Yeman and Pakistan, in which there has been no debate and I agree there should be one as well in Libya, but it doesn.t seem apart from Obama foreign policy buffs,like Jay Tea, it is no one's priority.

corrected English; that is,... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

corrected English; that is, it isn't anyone's priority, and no casualties.

Mr. Crickmore,I ca... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Crickmore,

I can we we're getting somewhere. I must say that any War conducted in our nation's name... is a top concern to me (and not just for foreign policy buffs like Mr. Tea)... it should be a concern of every American. I also disagree that this is Obama's war (even though he initiated it as our Commander-in-chief). I own it and so do you.

The way I see that our country should work in regards to war is our nation's leader (President Obama) makes the case for it to Congress: 100 Senators and 435 Representatives and ask for their support. Our Congressional representatives then debate amongst themselves the merits of the case (with input from their constituents) and then have a vote and either pass a resolution of support or a declaration of war... or even a rejection of such a resolution or declaration.

This is not the same as "debate" which these deliberative bodies do every day. We're talking here about an act... of War. Its not the job of Congressman X to lead the country (or X quantity of Senators or X quantity of Representatives) in such an act (and deliberation), thats the Presidents job...

More to the point, both the legislative branch and executive branch are suppose to work together if such an event is suppose to come about. Its pure crapola for one to just be informing the other of a fact accompli.

As far as the Republican or Democrat aspect that you speak of... it doesn't matter to one's enemy in War, and neither should it to you. If our enemy kills your son or daughter in combat - then the political party affiliation of your son or daughter (if any) is immaterial. I mean come on, what if they were registered Libertarian or Independent, it wouldn't matter, they'd still be dead... so you can see how silly this is getting just on the face of it.

Its worth repeating here... War is war, and its conducted on my behalf, and the behalf of all America (including you Steve), and so what does petty party politics have to do with making War come about or be engaged in on the Nations behalf.

SF - Brucepall

Brucepall, I have now read ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Brucepall, I have now read Glenn Greenwald's post, on this subject. If you haven't read i, here it is. 'Obama rejects top lawyers' legal views on Libya' . It is instructive and offers further evidenec to support my thoughts on Bush and our thoughts on Obama self-serving manoeuvres to ignore legal opinions and the Contstitution. It is rare that Jay and Greenwald share the same views.

As we tried to hold Bush's feet to the fire, it is your job to how Obama's feet to fire on how a president oversteps their powers and ignores or undermine the other two branches of government.

Mr. Crickmore,I kn... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Crickmore,

I know what war is like... if you participate in it, it never ever goes well. There are just bad days... and worse. Talk to any true combat vet, they will never brag and say they liked it, or that it was good... unless perhaps they are completely bent in the head (or as in some cases found here and there, they are pretending to be a war vet, as is to often the case these days, sad to say).

SF - Brucepall

Mr. Crickmore,You ... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Crickmore,

You need to drop this "We" and "Your" non-sense. Same for this party political hooey. Same for the Salon link you just sent. We're discussing war being fought in "Our" name, right now. The question still stands, if you can face it: What needs to change about our War in Libya, if anything, and tell us why or why not?

SF - Brucepall

Mr. Tea,I meant e... (Below threshold)
Brucepall:

Mr. Tea,

I meant every bit of what I said about blinders. Words mean things and so does context. Its like trying to have a deep discussion with a 5 year old... who just keeps repeating, but, but, but... look over here. What does that have to do with one's own accountability and responsibilities in the context of the here and now... lets return to the issue at hand, shall we?

Its like they never can come up with a principled stand or thoughtful informed argument all on their own. Call em out, and they can't express how the world really works... or what should be done to set things right. They just melt away like Jello in the hot sun... no real structure - nothing but goo. Pffft.

SF- Brucepall

"Going softcore on terroris... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Going softcore on terrorists is complete bullshit. This administration has at least proven that they will use international policing efforts to bring down terrorists or their supporters like Gaddafi."

Bullshit! Gaddafti gave up his WMD and terrorist ties after the invasion of Iraq. He didn't want to be next.

So when is Barry going after Hamas?




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:

[email protected]

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