November 11, 2010

“Obama Twists Own Arm, Says ‘Uncle’ to Extending Bush Tax Cuts.”

A lefty blogger response.

A lawprof puts it more haughtily...
"Obama caving on the high income tax-cut issue guarantees that he will attract an intra-party opponent from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party... The White House misreads the mood of the country. Tea partiers do not reflect that mood. Independents and Democrats disenchanted with Obama’s lack of conviction do."
... and more delusionally.

103 comments:

Alex said...

This is a new day in America! Obama just guaranteed his re-election. Congrats Hussein!

shoutingthomas said...

I don't care why he does it, so long as he does it.

Good for him.

Marshal said...

It's funny so many academians can't understand the cocoon they live in.

Chase said...

misreads the mood of the country. Tea partiers do not reflect that mood. Independents and Democrats disenchanted with Obama’s lack of conviction do."

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

(stops to regain breath and wipe tears) that's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Alex said...

What can I say. Lefties are always good for a belly-aching laugh.

Scott M said...

1) Fundamental Attribution Error (Anything I do well is because of my own strengths. Anything I do bad is because of other people)

2) Sour ballots...er, grapes...

WV - "wiffish" - "a swing and a miss" much like this article.

bagoh20 said...

With this thinking on the left, maybe this Tea Party thing will have legs after all.

chickelit said...

POTUS doesn't get that this is the dawning of the Age of Austerity.

jr565 said...

Hold off on demagoguing and soaking the "rich" till the economy rebounds. Is that so hard to understand?

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
America's Politico said...

This is the beginning of the end of the GOP. Obama is now moving to the re-election victory. With help of PACs, all will know this. No GOP victory in any state. It is over, GOP is finished. The POTUS has gotten back. We are happy, very happy.

AllenS said...

The big question: after 2 more years of Obama, will anyone besides black people vote for this man? I knew he was full of shit when he appeared on the scene. Finally, even the lefties are getting hip.

edutcher said...

Believe it when you see the bill actually signed.

Paul said...

Wait. There were middle class tax cuts? I could have sworn they said the Bush tax cuts were just for the rich.

LarsPorsena said...

BO is also taxing the poor and fixed income folks too. QE1/QE2 and the consequent devaluation of the dollar have increased the price of agricultural commodities 10% in the last 4 months. Look forward to $100 a barrel gas even though supplies are adequate and a painful rise in the cost of necessities.

But don't take my word for it. Check your grocery bill this month.

Scott M said...

This is the beginning of the end of the GOP. Obama is now moving to the re-election victory. With help of PACs, all will know this. No GOP victory in any state. It is over, GOP is finished. The POTUS has gotten back. We are happy, very happy.

Yes...because all of your pre-election predictions turned out to be so accurate.

The Crack Emcee said...

Why is it that, even though making himself say "Uncle" shows a bit of The Macho Response, I still picture hear him saying "Mommy"?

shoutingthomas said...

This is the beginning of the end of the GOP. Obama is now moving to the re-election victory. With help of PACs, all will know this. No GOP victory in any state. It is over, GOP is finished. The POTUS has gotten back. We are happy, very happy.

You seem to go through a cycle of wild optimism followed by crushing depressing, AP.

Maybe some Xanax would help.

Chase said...

. . . Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Jane (gasping) Hamsher wrote (gasping)it.

(Composing self) >Didn't Jane do a bloggingheads with out dear Professor?

And wasn't our dear Professor ever so slightly irritated with the vacuousness (translate "doesn't have a clue")of Ms Hamsher on several positions?

YES?


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Alex said...

AP puts Baghdad Bob to shame.

Lincolntf said...

Hilarious.
Obama just got totally owned by a political movement that didn't even exist when he was elected.
And now he's gonna have to try to keep his class warfare rhetoric to a minimum, which leaves him nothing but racial animus to run on in 2012. Good luck, suckbag.

Bruce Hayden said...

It will be humorous to see who this leftist is that they run against President Obama. I don't quite see the intelligence here. If you game this, esp. given the last election, that Republicans are going to be redrawing a distinct majority of the Congressional lines, and that almost 2/3 of the Senate seats next time are held by Democrats, they are playing with fire, this is about the worst thing that they could do.

So, what are the potential outcomes. If the candidate left of Obama beats him in the primary, he is likely to be beaten by almost whomever the Republicans run, giving the Republicans both the Presidency and Congress, including maybe a veto-proof Senate.

Or, it could split the lefty vote for the nomination, giving a moderate a chance. I see that being Hillary, who might win. Or maybe someone even closer to the center like Webb. So, we might end up with a moderate Democrat working with a Republican Congress, with its majority in the Senate likely a bit less.

Or, Obama could win the nomination, but be too damaged to win the general election.

Which is to say, that whichever case happens, the Republicans are the ones who are most likely going to benefit from a serious challenge to Obama from the left.

I suppose that their argument might be that they have a chance of getting someone to the left elected to replace Obama. But I think the odds of that are negligible. Why? The country is moving the right, esp. after the excesses by the left in Washington, D.C. over the last two years. President Obama can counter that, to some extent, through the power of incumbency. Anyone else on the left won't have that advantage.

Roger J. said...

It appears that a few of Mr O's advisors do, in fact, understood the shellacking they took on Nov 2.

With any luck, the progressives are dumb enough to revolt and put forward a candidate to oppose Mr Obama in the primary--like Moonbeam in CA or someother far leftie flake--One ONLY hopes for an internecine strife among dems.

Obama's advisors may in fact have gotten to him, and he understands he is fighting for his political survival--I dont give mr Obama credit for anything--he isnt smart enough to read the mood of the country--but perhaps a few of his progressive Jewish advisors do (foreshadowing C4) (I keed I keed)

AllenS said...

All of Obama's affirmative action certificates have been used up.

chuckR said...

Who could possibly be more out of touch with the Great Unwashed than our President and his camp followers, except maybe a tenured member of the professoriat?

Bruce Hayden said...

You seem to go through a cycle of wild optimism followed by crushing depressing, AP.

Maybe some Xanax would help
.

That is a good point. We joke that some here should go back on their meds, but this does sound serious. But if his problem really is that he is bipolar, lithium still looks like the best initial treatment. Of course, I am not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, so we may need to wait until one shows up here to best suggest treatments.

Indeed, that is the best advice I think that anyone can give here - to get competent medical help here ASAP, and I think that means seeing a psychiatrist. Not a psychologist, because they can't prescribe the needed drugs, and not a GP, because this requires specialist knowledge of the drugs needed.

Trooper York said...

Well your boy Russ Feingold is available.

Roger J. said...

AllenS--hey man--what are you doing for Veterans day? Outback Steakhouse is giving away a free blooming onion and drink to a vet--me? I plan to open a good bottle of cognac tonite in remembrance of the classmates and troopers in my unit who did not come back.

Garry Owen

Bruce Hayden said...

I do think that it will be interesting to see if this new found pragmatism lasts. I know that a lot of Democrats sure hope it does. Without it, they are facing a long six years. Two for the end of this Administration trying to reign with a Republican House, and four for the next Republican one with strong majorities in both Houses of Congress.

America's Politico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

I would love to see Feingold challenge King Obama I to a convention fight. Russ can out noble anyone in an argument after his first three words spoken in that sincere persona style of his.

Scott M said...

AllenS--hey man--what are you doing for Veterans day? Outback Steakhouse is giving away a free blooming onion and drink to a vet--me? I plan to open a good bottle of cognac tonite in remembrance of the classmates and troopers in my unit who did not come back.

Garry Owen


I noticed this along with the Applebees free food thing. My question is...how do they check? It's not like I walk around with a DD-214 in my wallet.

Bruce Hayden said...

But before we make too many spending decisions about the next year, from the National Journal: Axelrod Denies Obama Would Concede Tax Cuts.

Roger J. said...

Scott M-I think it depends on your having an active or retired military ID card--I do have one suggestion: take your DD214 and scan it as a PDF--its better than nothing, and you dont have to deal with the DOD bureaucracy

jr565 said...

Obama is realizing the futility of tying your row boat to the liberal ship. It's not as powerful as you think it is, and sinks really quickly. And now his little boat is stranded in the middle of the ocean and he has to paddle back to shore (wherever that is)
Let the liberals run their candidate who wants to soak the rich. I think a lot of people out of work don't care so much about the fat bankers than about the rich company that might hire them so they can earn some money. Soaking the rich works against the interest of the middle class, because people need jobs to get there, and companies need to be healthy to hire people. Healthy means profitable, which means that the owners will get rich. Which makes them villains apparently. But if want to get to the middle class, know that capitalism (and not socialism) is your friend. And if you're in the middle class, who doesn't want to move to the rich class? There too, capitalism is your friend.

DaveW said...

I keep trying to figure these guys out and I continue to be baffled.

Are they liars? Or are they stupid?

I mean, go back to when insurers started saying they were going to have to raise rates to cover all the additional benefits in the health bill, or the corporations saying they were going to have to amend their reports, and the Dems had a coniption fit and started subpoenaing them for hearings.

Did they actually believe you could cover more benefits for less (or the same) money? Or were they just putting on a show?

Same with this law prof. Does he actually believe that the majority of people want tax increases, and that they want them so badly they'll vote against Obama to get them? Or is he just posturing for his buddies?

These guys baffle me.

k*thy said...

Independents and Democrats disenchanted with Obama’s lack of conviction do.

No kidding. Some say, metaphorically, Axelrod brings a knife to a gun fight over taxes. Others say, realistically, he brings a "Shoot Me!" sign.

AllenS said...

This morning I have to split wood. Later this afternoon, I'll drink some beer. Usually, there are a couple of vet friends that stop out every year, and we tip a few over. It's about 25 miles to the nearest Applebee's and Outback. Too far to drive after drinking. In my youth, however...

God bless, the veterans, past and present and future.

Calypso Facto said...

They beat you to it, Trooper:

Feingold for President

Some are saying that's what his "See you in 2012" statement meant....

c3 said...

Even though you never call it what it is, when does a pivot become a pivot?

Comrade X said...

what a dumb fuck. he could have pushed through the cut extensions for everyone except the top bracket a couple of years ago, removing uncertainty, and possibly actually stimulating the economy.

c3 said...

Is this the man to watch in the next two years (for tax and budget issues)?

(I'm assuming as ranking Republican he'll be the next chair. Am I wrong?)

Mr Evilwrench said...

"Those silly TEAs are just a fringe extremist group. It's the left and moderates that represent America. After all, everyone I know is a leftist, and tat's what they all think, and of course the moderates are enlightened enough to know." Jeezopeez, how can people, for whom reality is readily available, miss out so profoundly? How do they survive?

I think the drug you're looking for would be thorazine.

I don't know how this idea got through to zero, but I'm still confident that he doesn't have the wherewithal to compromise, even with the center, nevermind to the center.

Hillary would be even worse, in my opinion. She's just as poisonous a marxist (look at her attempted health care debacle). However, she's learned her politics a bit better than zero from her unholy alliance with slick willie.

Anyone to the left has no chance, as long as we have a candidate that doesn't mind calling him on it and staying on target. We didn't have that in 2008, and we can trust the leftstream media not to help.

t-man said...

Are they liars? Or are they stupid?

Is it a floor wax, or a dessert topping?

It's both!

Rumpletweezer said...

Hey AP--

You said you would go away. Now, I don't really care one way or the other, but I do believe that a man's word ought to mean something for him even if it has no meaning to anyone else.

MadisonMan said...

Oh dear. You mean a politician is letting his supporters down?

How often does that happen!?

PatCA said...

"Independents and Democrats disenchanted with Obama’s lack of conviction do."

HAHAHA!

Right. And last Tuesday the VRWC reset their clocks so they didn't know it was Election Day!! So the non-progressives won!

rcocean said...

This makes nonsense of any Obama claim to be concerned about the deficit, fiscal responsibility,or making the rich pay their full share.

Fortunately for him about 40 percent of Boobus Americanus will Vote Democrat no matter what.

MayBee said...

I do love it when people with tenure talk about the realities of life.

But who gets upset that someone else isn't being made to pay more in taxes?

Robert Cook said...

How unsurprising, from this craven fake progressive who has never been anything but an ambitious climber and minion to the wealthy and powerful.

Of course, extending the tax cuts to the wealthy is, however bitter a pill, small potatoes compared to his continuing efforts to assert unilateral power to assassinate anyone he pleases, American citizens included, and to assert further that this power may not be questioned or interfered with by the courts.

Meet the new boss, same old shitheel.

Jim said...

Remember when Obama said he would go through the budget "line by line" and reduce spending?

LOL

Oh...the 2012 campaign ads pretty much write themselves.

But sure. Let Lefties believe that THEY are the reason that he was so toxic in red and purple states that they had him campaigning in RHODE ISLAND.

PatCA said...

If Obama was planning to push through his huge agenda full force in his first year, he should have been more vague in his campaign promises.

Transparency, DADT, Gitmo, line by line veto, you can keep your insurance...he's broken them all before we had a chance to forget them.

Scott M said...

Transparency, DADT, Gitmo, line by line veto, you can keep your insurance...he's broken them all before we had a chance to forget them.

LOL, nicely said.

RuyDiaz said...

"Did they actually believe you could cover more benefits for less (or the same) money? Or were they just putting on a show?"

They actually believed it--the posturing and the showmanship was incidental.

Basically, they think that insurance companies cheat/steal/jack up prices, or whatever. So, when the large insurance companies announced the planned increases, they assumed 'collusion' due to 'greed'.

Irene said...

My lefty friends are posting a Facebook petition, "You Can't Compromise with Crazy.

*face palm*

MayBee said...

Candidate Obama promising net spending cuts during debate w/McCain. Line by line. The bonus here is Obama talking about a $750 billion rescue package.

President Elect Barack Obama promising to cut wasteful spending.

He really was a great President Elect.

Trooper York said...

Is Norman Thomas still avialable?

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lincolntf said...

Irene said...


There's nothing more precious than being lectured on sanity by the type of people who get their news from a cable variety show.

If they really get on your nerves, run down the litany of Obama's actions that were "war crimes" under Bush. It drives them insane.

Roger J. said...

So hows Mr Obama working out for you Obama supporters? Bueller? Althouse? Cookie?

That ole boy is doing a bang up job as President. Everybody is impressed--hell the Norwegians may give him another peace prize.

Mr Obama has accomplished on thing in his tenure: and its a miracle: he has made Jimmy Carter look good.

murgatroyd666 said...

Politico headline:

President Obama ready to deal on Bush tax cuts for the wealthy

This "tax cuts for the wealthy" bullshit really irritates me, because it's so wrong. The people who pay the highest taxes are the ones who earn the most money in a year.

Wealthy people already have their money, property, investments, and power -- the taxes they pay on what they make in a year are almost down in the noise level.

The people who are hurt most by the resumption of high taxes are the entrepreneurs who are starting to see their hard work pay off and the people who own and run small businesses -- the people who, amng other things, create new jobs.

The headline should say:

President Obama may reconsider imposing higher taxes on the most productive

Rich B said...

Shh!

Don't wake the reality-based community up!

ricpic said...

The big question: after 2 more years of Obama, will anyone besides blacks vote for this man?

95% blacks

60% - 70% hispanics

60% - 70% Jews, I'm ashamed to say

60% - 70% single white women

50% of women overall

Doesn't matter what Obama does, doesn't matter how bad the economy, that's the way the above groups' vote will break.

Robert Cook said...

Roger J. said:

"So hows Mr Obama working out for you Obama supporters? Bueller? Althouse? Cookie?"

I don't mind people here hurling personal invective at me, but I won't stand for being called an "Obama supporter."

I didn't vote for that putz, but for a third party candidate. I saw the writing on the wall with Obama before the election, although I admit I'm surprised at the degree to which he has acted with abject fealty to the overlords of the moneyed class.

LarsPorsena said...

"..I didn't vote for that putz, but for a third party candidate..."

Was Ho Chi Minh on the ballot?

garage mahal said...

I swear to God Obama is a Republican mole.

AllenS said...

garage mahal said...
I swear to God Obama is a Republican mole.

I think that you might be missing a comma between the words God and Obama. Or maybe not.

Scott M said...

I think that you might be missing a comma between the words God and Obama. Or maybe not.

lol

Lincolntf said...

God Obama is not going to be pleased when he returns from his journey and nobody cares. We'd be wise to prepare offerings.
I believe that Wagyu beef and blow are the traditional sacrifices.

Alex said...

95% blacks

60% - 70% hispanics

60% - 70% Jews, I'm ashamed to say

60% - 70% single white women

50% of women overall

Doesn't matter what Obama does, doesn't matter how bad the economy, that's the way the above groups' vote will break.


None of those immutable. The GOP just needs the right candidate that can speak to the ethnic/gender needs of those groups.

c3 said...

How unsurprising, from this craven fake progressive

Uh oh, he's lost Robert Cook. Like Ohio, that man is a bellweather.

c3 said...

The big question: after 2 more years of Obama, will anyone besides blacks vote for this man?

95% blacks

60% - 70% hispanics

60% - 70% Jews, I'm ashamed to say

60% - 70% single white women

50% of women overall

Doesn't matter what Obama does, doesn't matter how bad the economy, that's the way the above groups' vote will break.


As we saw in 2004, it all depends on who runs against him!

Robert Cook said...

"Uh oh, he's lost Robert Cook."

See my previous comment: he never had me.

I didn't vote for Obama (or McCain), although I did vote in the election.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

Obama's got less than two years of legitimate executive experience on Olbermann. I bet someone with Olby's personable, lovely, optimistic personality can win a progressive primary.

Olby for Prez!!!

Roger J. said...

Mr Cook--I apologize for my characterization as an Obama supporter--and, FWIW, do appreciate you voting for whomever you voted for.

Apolgy extended

Methadras said...

Leftards do what leftards do best, fuck everything up do to their own delusions of inadequacy and then project that to the rest of us. Kill them now while there is still time.

Methadras said...

Robert Cook said...

I didn't vote for that putz, but for a third party candidate.


Right. We get it, you are so left of Erkle that you voted for the closest thing to a communist that you could find. Who was it out of curiosity?

Lincolntf said...

Really can't blame Cookie for being disillusioned with the Democrats. The construction of gulags has been moving at a snail's pace.

Robert Cook said...

"Really can't blame Cookie for being disillusioned with the Democrats. The construction of gulags has been moving at a snail's pace."

To the contrary: if the President is openly asserting the right to assassinate anyone in the world whom he pleases, including American citizens, (as he is), and compounding this assertion with the further argument that the courts may not interfere or gainsay his decisions in this regard "as commander in chief," then I am not at all confident there are not gulags already being prepared for those who will be deemed "enemies of the state."

traditionalguy said...

Cookie is revealing to us what a primary challenge would do to Obama. Even if Obama wins, many libs will later refuse to vote at all. Why should they?.

Alex said...

Robert Cook - what should we do with terrorists? Or do terrorists even exist? They're probably freedom fighters in your book.

JAY said...

But, but, but, but, what about the $900 billion we're going to have to borrow?!!!!

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The left has no principles, just the desire to be in power...

JAY said...

but I won't stand for being called an "Obama supporter."

Heh.

Well, kudos to you!

JAY said...

Did they actually believe you could cover more benefits for less (or the same) money? Or were they just putting on a show?

They actually don't know.

There are very few elected Democrats with any experience outside of government.

Those that do, like Herb Kohl, are obscenely rich which is a buffer to such realities and they can't really understand the impact of what they're voting for.

The overwhelming majority of leftists in America do not have a basic understanding of market economics.

Scott M said...

The overwhelming majority of leftists in America do not have a basic understanding of market economics.

I prefer to think of them as underwhelming. They certainly were last Tuesday.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook - what should we do with terrorists? Or do terrorists even exist? They're probably freedom fighters in your book."

Many of the Afghanis (and foreign fighters assisting them, including Osama bin Laden) whom we deem "terrorists" now were assisted by us with weapons and money and CIA advisors back when they were fighting to expel the Russians from their land as they fight today to expel us. Ronald Reagan termed the Contras in Nicaragua "the moral equivalent to our founding fathers," yet they engaged in acts of terrorism, of murder and torture of their fellow Nicaraguans, so I guess "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" certainly does depend on one's point of view.

There are certainly terrorists. What should we do with them? First we have to clarify what we mean when we use the term. Are we referring to actual terrorists, people who kill innocents in horrific public bombings or by other means to effect political goals? Are we referring to Iraqi or Afghanistan citizens who take up arms to defend their land or families or homes against those whom they rightly consider foreign invading forces, (that is, US)? Are we referring simply to any persons we decide to detain for whatever reasons, because it amplifies the appearance that we're doing something, or because we assume they're all our enemies and one's as good as another to torture into confessing whatever we want them to confess? Remember, most of those who were held at Guantanamo and were deemed not just "terrorists," but "the worst of the worst" by Donald Rumsfeld were known from the beginning by our military (or determined later) to have been innocents, picked up in dragnets or turned in for bounty money or by people who had personal grudges against them.

Once we have detained people who seem to be actual terrorists, we should certainly try to obtain information from them--without torture, without abuse, without physical or psychological coercion of any kind--and see what we can discover. Experienced interrogators are able to elicit much information without resorting to violence.

Beyond that, it's hard to say what we should do. In dealing with them we must observe due process at all times and in every case until the appropriate resolution is found for each on a case by case basis.

And we certainly need to get the fuck out of their countries.

Alex said...

Robert Cook :

Once we have detained people who seem to be actual terrorists, we should certainly try to obtain information from them--without torture, without abuse, without physical or psychological coercion of any kind--and see what we can discover. Experienced interrogators are able to elicit much information without resorting to violence.

My god you're beyond delusional if you think the Care Bear approach works with terrorhoids.

Alex said...

And we certainly need to get the fuck out of their countries.

Why? We have serious business there and we should protect our national interests. If Islamic fuckwads want to launch public bombings because we have a military base in Saudi Arabia then they are evil motherfuckers who should be exterminated. Unless you think it's A-oK to murder innocent people if you're outraged enough by the presence of American military bases.

Robert Cook said...

"We have serious business there and we should protect our national interests."

What about their national interests?

How sanguine would you be if the Russians decided their national interests required their invasion of our country, accompanied by drone bombings; checkpoints set up in our cities where citizens trying to go about their business were hassled, indimidated, arrested, or shot; where any citizen was apt to be arrested and disappeared to face torture or death; where you might be killed in front of your family by soldiers smashing into your house at night; or many of the other, ahem, "inconveniences" an invading army would inflict on us? If you were pissed off enought to try to fight back however you could--through roadside bombs directed at the Russians' vehicles, let's say--would you deserve whatever fate they meted out to you, because, after all, you would only be a dirty terrorist?

Our national interests do not trump the law or the rights and interests of every other nation in the world.

Alex said...

How sanguine would you be if the Russians decided their national interests required their invasion of our country,

How did we invade Saudi Arabia? Bin Laden gives our military base there as his #1 reason for doing 9/11. But we have that base their because the KSM asked us to. So no invasion, shmuck.

Alex said...

Also how was Iraq even a legitimate country under Saddam Insane? We owed it to the Iraqi people to invade them and get rid of that brutal dictator.

Alex said...

Richard Perle said Iraq invasion illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

JAY said...

Our national interests do not trump the law or the rights and interests of every other nation in the world.

Actually, when you have the bombs, money, and brains, they do.

Further, we made their country better you abject imbecile.

JAY said...

How sanguine would you be if the Russians decided their national interests required their invasion of our country,

I think it funny that you actually believe this is some sort of analogy.

Um, you do understand that UN Security council agreed Saddam had WMD, and was a threat to world peace, right?

Right?

JAY said...

If you were pissed off enought to try to fight back however you could--through roadside bombs directed at the Russians' vehicles,

Um, you do understand the elected government of Iraq condemns those engaging in such activities, and the Iraqi army, are fighting against those people planing roadside bombs, right?

Right?

Further, you can grasp the fact that a lot of them aren't even Iraqi, right?

Try another analogy you idiot.

JAY said...

I've never seen anyone belcown themselves faster than this cooke douche on an Internet site.

Wow.

JAY said...

OOPS!

SEOUL - President Barack Obama failed to reach agreement on two international deals to help spur the U.S. economy, unexpected setbacks on an Asia trip that was supposed to emphasize his stature abroad and change the subject from last week’s electoral drubbing.

Remember how you leftists were posting about all those jobs Obama was going to create on this trip?

I guess you lied.

Robert Cook said...

"Um, you do understand that UN Security council agreed Saddam had WMD, and was a threat to world peace, right?"

Actually, I don't know that. As there were no WMD in Iraq after the early to mid-90s, if the member nations of the UN Security Council did assume this, they were wrong, basing any such assumptions on years-old information. This is why new UN inspectors were sent to Iraq in the months before we invaded, to try to come to a determination that Saddam had or had not satisfied his obligations to dispose of his weapons. Although he had, and the inspectors failed to find any evidence to suggest he retained any weapons, they could not complete their mission and issue a finding because George Bush had a schedule to keep...a scheduled invasion date that was as heedless of what the UN inspectors might or might not find as the Bush Administration itself was heedless of the law.

The UN Security Council did NOT, as required, vote to approve our invasion of Iraq, thus putting us in violation of our obligations to the UN Charter, a violation of the law of the land. (We withdrew the proposal before a vote could be taken, as it became apparent the vote would be contrary to our desire to attack Iraq, and the proposal would not carry.)

Robert Cook said...

"Further, we made their country better you abject imbecile."

Yes, I understand the concept: it is required that we destroy a village pursuant to saving it.

JAY said...

because George Bush had a schedule to keep...a scheduled invasion date that was as heedless of what the UN inspectors might or might not find as the Bush Administration itself was heedless of the law.

You are a propagandist and a liar.

No such thing happened.

JAY said...

The UN Security Council did NOT, as required, vote to approve our invasion of Iraq, thus putting us in violation of our obligations to the UN Charter,

You are a propagandist and a liar.

This did not happen.

I've never seen anyone belcown themselves faster than this cooke douche on an Internet site.

JAY said...

a scheduled invasion date

Something you couldn't possibly prove.

Doyle said...

Characteristically petty refusal to identify Jane Hamsher by name. I'm not her biggest fan but of course your readership knows who she is.