March 20, 2011

"[I]f Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached."

Says Ralph Nader.

On the other hand, if you thought George Bush acted appropriately, then you should see that one benefit of the Obama presidency is that it has denied the Democrats the ability to stand at a distance and criticize, as if they were above that sort of thing. This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama: "When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"

134 comments:

PaulV said...

if Ds can't whine and finger point they will whine and finger point

Freeman Hunt said...

On the other hand, if you thought George Bush acted appropriately, then you should see that one benefit of the Obama presidency is that it has denied the Democrats the ability to stand at a distance and criticize, as if they were above that sort of thing.

This only works if we have an honest media. And we don't.

Down the memory hole any compare and contrast will go.

Alex said...

just proves how CRAZY libtards truly are...

chickelit said...

Instead of impeaching...how about "impearing" -- with Congressional oversight!

Palladian said...

"When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"

Completely fuck things up.

Alex said...

Freeman is up on her Orwell I see...

Sloanasaurus said...

There are also all kinds of anti war statements made by Obama himself. The Obama of 2007 and before would have wildly condemned this attack on Libya.

So what exactly are Obama's principles?

Coketown said...

The last two years have been full of teachable moments. From executive overreach to filibusters to passing legislation in spite of popular opposition, it's nice to be able to think, "Gee, remember how the other side reacted when they pulled stunts like this?"

Belkys said...

So what exactly are Obama's principles?
Sir if you dont like those i have others

Ann Althouse said...

La Petite Farlette is hoping to finger-point at the French if things don't go swimmingly. But don't tell him how lame that is. The poor dear may swoon!

traditionalguy said...

What Sweet Old Obama is doing is to keep up normal appearances by slogging along in Bush's old footsteps while he under handedly ends the USA's economic and therefore military power by regulating away oil and coal energy with the CO2 hoax while borrowing three trillion dollars from China to spend on Nationalized Health along with neat high speed trains and windmills for his buddies. So far every move Obama has made to destroy the USA has been called out by one political player named Palin. She never falls for the delusions.

vbspurs said...

Ann Althouse wrote:

This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama: "When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"

Without having read the explanatory link, THIS was why you voted for Obama? Because in the absence of the fingerpointing, ranting and tantrum-throwing, you thought they would actually have to govern and do STUFF? My God. Hope you learnt something...

somefeller said...

Nader is the classic po-faced left-wing purity troll who never has to worry about the real responsibilities of power. And he's happier that way. For what it's worth, nothing he says can be considered to be the mainstream Democratic view on anything. That ship left a long time ago.

Maguro said...

So Nader is playing the Robert Cook role of principled leftwing loon, condemning Obama and Bush alike for their evil Koch/Halliburton-inspired WAR CRIMES!!!!!!11!!!!!

Well, great, but how much honest to goodness antiwar activism is he going put forth against this latest adventure? Probably little to none, if history is any guide. You won't see him chained to the White House fence or stalking Obama in Hawaii with Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pink twats.

If Ralph really believes there are war crimes being committed, he better start doing some serious agitatin' and fast if he wants anyone to believe he's sincere about this.

David said...

Thank God for Nader--always bringing clarity.

Charlie Martin said...

then you should see that one benefit of the Obama presidency is that it has denied the Democrats the ability to stand at a distance and criticize,

Would that it were true.

Sixty Grit said...

The lefties love war and killing little brown people, but only when it is done by other lefties.

Stephanie said...

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
Althouse

sane_voter said...

Libtard (Obama) logic. When you go to war with no self-interest, then that is honorable not impeachable. When you act militarily in a way that is in the country's interest, that is dishonorable and you should get impeached.

Freeman Hunt said...

Freeman is up on her Orwell I see...

Yes, I did complete high school. Maybe they don't teach that in high school anymore. Too busy making sure the students are up on their reality TV in order to prepare them for the modern SAT.

Writ Small said...

Saturday morning, I saw my sister's facebook photo. It was her holding an anti-Libyan war sign. She also voted for Obama, but unlike Ann, she is a true believer.

Together, we grew up watching the indecisive Carter and the optimistic Reagan. My parents were big Democrats, and my sister has not fundamentally changed her views since she was a kid. I have, and I imagine a lot of Tea Partiers who came of age in the same era had their politics permanently altered.

Obama is ensuring that many young, idealistic liberals will grow up to be grouchy conservatives.

foxtrot said...

As I reflect on the splendor of the faux marble columns at the DNC in 2008, when Obamacus Caesar spoke before the masses, it makes everything that has happened since even more laughable.

This guy's ego has set himself up for years of ridicule.

Fred4Pres said...

I think it is bit late, but I do support a no fly zone and curtailing Qadaffi's murder squads. I hope it is in time.

So Obama is doing the right thing.

sane_voter said...

And Obama's dithering insured that when he finally acted militarily it would not have any positive political effect for us.

ironrailsironweights said...

During a long airline flight this man starts talking with the beautiful woman in the next seat. When he asks her what she does, the woman replies, "I'm a psychologist, and I'm on my way to a convention to give a speech about male sexuality. Based on my research, I've discovered that Native American men are the best endowed, Jewish men are the most skilled in sexual matters, and men from the South have the best endurance. By the way, my name is Mary Jones, what's yours?"

"My name is Running Bear Goldberg, but my friends call me Bubba."


Peter

EnigmatiCore said...

I've yet to see evidence you are not an abortion voter.

Allison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Allison said...

--what will they actually step up and do?"


Gee, I see a fairly planet-sized hole in this argument.

Lessee...GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld had a plan. They had plans within plans, counter plans for when those plans didn't work, and contingencies. They had a reason that had strategic and tactical importance to the safety of America that they could articulate. They moved to remove what they and every other country thought was a massive threat to the US; they considered that regime change would mean they would have to replace the regime and created plans for what that replacement would be, and they used available intelligence to articulate various reasonable factions of a relatively functioning society that could seemingly step up to those roles. The country at issue had had, at least, a functioning middle class with functioning civil institutions such as universities, civil forces like police and fire, hospitals, functioning transportation networks. They knew what their objectives were. Not to mention the thousands of hours spent trying to understand the law to date and then legally coming up with legal mechanisms for warfare, capturing of combatants, holding of them, etc., tens or hundreds of thousands of hours spent reworking military policy wrt doctrine, R&D development, procurement, etc. And all of that planning, intelligence, diplomacy, etc. didn't exactly go as planned.

Is the argument that since the plan didn't go to plan, we don't need any planning or intelligence or diplomacy here?

Here...the Dems have no plan, have no clear objectives, have no knowledge whatsoever about the various factions, have no idea who will fill the power vacuum they seemingly intend to create, and see no "Exit plan", as it were.

Now, I think we should have gotten Qaddafi a long time ago for the Lockerbie bombing. I've got no problem taking him out. But it would be nice if anyone *anyone* of the Dems seemed to see the chasm between the seriousness with which the prior administration took regime change and the emotional response Hillary took here--and admitted that that seriousness was right and proper AND NECESSARY for success of any mission.

Lombardi Chick said...

"When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"

Completely fuck things up.


This.

John Lynch said...

We have to be able to fight wars. Even if this war is wrong, we got every possible international body to OK it.

What else does the left want? No wars at all?

Nice of them to finally be honest about it. All that BS about W. not getting UN approval is revealed for what it was.

I think that this is a return to the wars the US is good at. Strategic bombing and no ground war at all. Little cost to us, no counter, and limited duration.

This is what we'll be doing in the future. No one is going to support any kind of ground war for a long time.

prairie wind said...

Fred4Pres, agreed that the no-fly zone might be a good idea...but are you comfortable with Obama in charge? I am not.

I wish I could give credit to the commenter who said this after the 2008 elections but he/she said, "it feels as if we are in a bus driven by a 12-year-old down a mountain." I haven't lost that feeling yet.

And if the Republicans don't come up with a great candidate soon...

Carol_Herman said...

Ralph Nader, our Harold Stasson, can't even reach "matching funds" when he runs for president!

Impeaching Obama would be so dumb politically, it could only be done by a brain dead opposition.

Ralph Nader is not in the opposition, either.

retire05 said...

Professor Althouse, if you thought electing Obama would cause the Democrats to act in the interest of the nation, and not their far left base, I don't know what to say to you.

The election of Obama has reaped a few things, but Democrats acting like adults is not one of them. So far, not ONE Obama campaign promise has been kept, other than Obamacare, which the majority of the nation is against.

We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "good" war in Afghanistan has seen 630 American soldiers return home in caskets under Bush but 885 in Obama's short 26 months in office. Gitmo is still open, KSM has not been tried, Afghanistan is a mess, we now have a DoJ that sues states trying to enforce federal law, and ignoring the orders of federal judges much less letting those who intimidate voters go scott free. Obama's siding with Chavez and others on tiny Honduras should have been your first clue that he is out of his league.

Where is Obama's speech to the U.N. demanding Quadaffi leave? Where is the Authorization for the Use of Military Forces in Libya? And now, the man you voted for is in Brazil telling the Brazilians how he approves of the drilling plans, yet he shuts down our own drilling costing American jobs.

And just exactly what was the experience held by this man you voted for? Did you check his record from Illinois? Did you know what he voted on, what bills he wrote that were passed?

You voted for an empty suit, a poseur, a myth. We can only pray that Americans come out of the stupor before November, 2012.

Carol_Herman said...

If Obama can improve his poll ratings, after the pounding he got from the passage of Obamacare; the democrats will rally round him like nobody's business!

CATNIP is just another word for a political maneuver designed to get you voter approval.

Sure. Bombings are not enough! You've got to see Americans welcomed in. After Ghaddafi's gone. And, all the Libyans come out dancing.

In Irak, the people voted in Maliki. The Shi'a won. They hate the saud's. They weren't going to cooperate with the sunni's. We brought in Bremmer who was a disaster. And, we pinned our hopes on Chalabi. Very expensive political errors.

Do I hate the thought that Obama can win a second term? You bet'cha.

You know, the anti-war crowd, back when we were in Vietnam, spit on the soldiers in uniform, when they returned home. So soldiers coming home removed their uniforms! (LBJ, a democrap, feeling the mess of Vietnam, ran home to Texas, instead of seeking another term.)

The democraps want their power back! They're best bet is to rally round our military. How soon? As soon as Ghaddafi's gone. And, Libyans come out of hiding from the Libyan Secret Police. And, the fears of being carted off in the night.

MadisonMan said...

I will write something I've written before.

There were no good choices to be made in the 2008 Election. Two dull choices. The Republican Party would be in total shambles if McCain had been elected President. And I'm not sure how well the Country would be faring either.

Feingold would probably still be a Senator, however, had McCain been elected.

Gabriel Hanna said...

So we have Obama attacking Middle Eastern nations that don't directly threaten us, keeping GTMO open, signing the Patriot Act into law, and killing enemies, designated by himself, with drones in foreign countries.

Why is he acting so much like Bush?

There are only two possibilities:

a) Despite all the hope and change, and the Nobel Peace Prize, and the impeccable left-liberal credentials, he has been thoroughly coopted by the military-industrial complex in two short years;

b) Obama was totally wrong about these issues and did not discover it until he actually had to be President.

Our resident lefty trolls need to be pushed which of these scenarios they believe. They should not be allowed to get away with snark.

Seven Machos said...

Who was the last president Nader didn't want to impeach?

Also, what's Nader's take home in contributions? The man has to say these things. How else can he afford the second house in Aspen?

JAL said...

oh professor.

give it up.

Seven Machos said...

There were no good choices to be made in the 2008 Election. Two dull choices. The Republican Party would be in total shambles if McCain had been elected President. And I'm not sure how well the Country would be faring either.

I hereby bold what Madison said.

I, ahem, wrote at the time that people would look back at the 2008 election as a weird, out-of-time time. That's not true. I look back now and just cackle as the irony slathers on so thick.

Seven Machos said...

And one more thing -- you people bitching about Obama being elected: please recall what a shambles of selling out and non-conservatism and non-libertarianism the Republican party was in 2008.

The country will survive. It's good that Republican leadership was woken up, and that many people who needed to go have gone.

Allison said...

--Obama was totally wrong about these issues and did not discover it until he actually had to be President.


But they cannot admit it, because if they did, they would admit that the half-baked way they are undertaking these very same things is a disaster, and that the seriousness with which handling e.g. military tribunals, issues of rendition, spec ops eyes on the ground helping air assets target the red hats, or any of a hundred other issues is done matters to the effectiveness of those outcomes.

It's not enough to admit Bush wasn't wrong, or that it wasn't all Bush's fault. They'd actually have to take serious accountability for their prior and subequent actions.

jr565 said...

Ann Althouse wrote:
On the other hand, if you thought George Bush acted appropriately, then you should see that one benefit of the Obama presidency is that it has denied the Democrats the ability to stand at a distance and criticize, as if they were above that sort of thing. This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama: "When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"


So, knowing what you know now, would you vote for him again in the next election? And why or why not?

Carol_Herman said...

Before McCain, it was John Kerry. Kerry taught me that the democraps ran him because he promised his wife would pay all the expenses of the election. (Theresa didn't. But the DNC didn't know that!)

McCain too was a weird choice. Not liked by republicans. But loved by the press. (At least going back to 1988 ... when he shot out with his STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS, in New Hampshire. Where he lost the primary to the elder Bush.)

Since the republicans, in 1996, let Bob Dole run "because it was his turn," it's hard to respect HOW our parties pick their nominees.

McCain, when up against Obama, lost by a wide margin! The women, McCain said, "who'd have voted for Hillary" ... were not in his pocket, either.

McCain probably thought he had the edge because Obama was Black.

And, yes. It would have been worse if we got President Mood Ring, back in 2008. Heck, I think we'd have had racial riots to boot.

Almost Ali said...

So what exactly are Obama's principles?

Marxist and Machiavellian, often absent conscience. Literally, the inability to sympathize or empathize beyond his own being, and/or his limited sphere.

Thus there is never a contradiction, only perfection. That is, narcissism guards him against any grief or self-doubt. When he does Rio, for example, he means it, he's totally absorbed.

In sum, by virtue of his position, a very, very dangerous person. A loose canon without objective self-awareness. When pushed, even nudged, it's all downhill... without brakes.

And frankly, I'd like to know what the Russian and Israeli profilers have to say about the stability of our Mr Obama. And more, the influence of his wife, and other key positions around him.

Seven Machos said...

knowing what you know now, would you vote for him again in the next election?

I want to take this one for myself. I voted halfheartedly for McCain. I am now glad he lost. Elated.

As Madison said above: the Republicans were in shambles in 2008. We are now invigorated. Besides Obamacare, which is unconstitutional but only by a technicality and otherwise just bad law, what's Obama done? Let me tell you: Obama has been Bush's third term in every meaningful way. He's even got us attacking the scum government of Libya. It's awesome.

The best part is Obama is a one-termer. We get a guy like Mitch Daniels in there, and we can do some truly awesome, even revolutionary things.

Old Dad said...

Prof. said, "La Petite Farlette is hoping to finger-point at the French if things don't go swimmingly."

The world's turned upside down. An Irishman hiding behind a frog in a fair fight, trying to cover a Yank's ass who's hiding in Rio, while his women fade the heat.

You can't make that up.

Oligonicella said...

This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama: "When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"

Very, very expensive lesson. You could have simply listened to those telling you this would happen before the election.

kent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carol_Herman said...

The Gaddafi in charge of the secret police is dead. Burned to death. And, Gaddafi's 4-story-hacienda in Tripoli has been destroyed.

Not since American troops were in Italy, and the Italians came out, dancing in the streets, throwing flowers. Kissing our troops. Has America seen what it's like when our soldiers are seen as saviors.

Libya has a very small population. People lived in fear under Ghaddafi's cult for more than 40 years.

What would thrilling scenes, where American soldiers being embraced ... and the press finally coming in without restrictions. What would that look like? What would that do for Obama's numbers?

Phil 3:14 said...

OK first Louis Farrakhan and now Ralph Nader. What other irrelevant political figure needs to weigh in on this situation?

Calling George McGovern!

Phil 3:14 said...

But on the bright side maybe we get to hear about dissension in the Democratic Party ranks for a change.

Phil 3:14 said...

You know all of this talk about the lousy candidates offered by both parties in the last few election cycles suggests we're looking for

The One

See where that's gotten us.

Rarely does life offer us easy and obvious choices.

Deal with it!

PETER V. BELLA said...

Who pays any attention to Nader. He is more irrelevant than Jesse Jackson.

Coketown said...

I shall vote for the candidate who has never heard of, let alone uses, anaphora, alliteration, or metaphor. Or at least has a speechwriter sophisticated enough to use these devices with subtlety. The subtext of every Obama speech is, "Look at me! I have an MFA! Look at me!"

kent said...

... and now the Jug-Eared Jesus has lost yet another (formerly) slavish fanboy devotee: self-appointed maximum man-crush Andrew Sullivan:

"And I think it, I’m just, I’m just, I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. I mean this is a, this, this initiative, this, this, this no-fly zone, this war essentially, is [...] this politicized Clintonian mess."

Oh. MY.

Rose said...

"So what exactly are Obama's principles?"

Go to church in order to climb the ladder, Dump that as soon as you've won.

Say anything to get elected. No one will challenge you. You're golden. I mean black. Half. But enough so that no one dare ask you any questions.

Do anything. From unsealing private divorce records to paying off supporters with lucrative contracts, buying a big fancy house that you only have to pay a fraction of the value.

Claim to be striving for bi-partisanship on the one hand, knowing that the reporters will portray you as so noble while on the other hand doing absolutely the opposite.

Target your enemies and send out hte goon squads - "Working Families Party" and SEiU thugs by the busload - proclaiming that "the people are upset" and they will be coming with the Pitchforks and torches, and you know they will because they are part of your campaign apparatus. You're just lucky no one got killed in that little frenzy you whipped up...

That's Obama - it's all about getting elected, getting power and keeping power.

It's not about considering what's right, judicious spending or anything like what's right for the country. It's all him all the time.

The only good thing is people are seeing it - from the empty words to the parties, vacations and basketball brackets....

Too late - but it will be a good test. Our system is designed to withstand a shitty President. Let's hope it can.

murgatroyd666 said...

"When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point ...

Has that ever happened?

You know who they're starting to blame for "causing" the war? John McCain! Why? Because he proposed a no-fly zone over Libya last month, and he used his Jedi mind tricks to force Obama into going along with the scheme!

kent said...

Make that four leftard icons simultaneously (and hastily) absenting themselves from The Won's flock within the past twnty-four hours: Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, Andrew Sullivan... and now, sainted "Mama" Cindy Sheehan:

"I used to be against ALL wars and the use of violence, but (and I must admit a little confusion on this one, at first) now it seems that I am against wars, acts of war, and violence ONLY if a Republican is president. Now I understand with perfect clarity that it was good to protest Bush—and if the US-UN resolution against Libya was done when Bush was president, it would have been wrong—but now it’s 'compassionate.' I must admit, I was a little shocked to find out that the US actually commits compassionate acts and, again, silly me—I thought most acts of war and war were for profit. I realize that only a jerk (or racist) would think that now. I have repented.

"I cringe with embarrassment when I think of the wasted years imagining that there could be any other way to solve problems without killing more innocent people! It’s okay to bomb Libyans to save Libyans (or Iraqis to save Iraqis; or Afghans to save Afghans; or Yemenis to save Yemenis, etc) because a Democratic president who has been given the cover of the UN Security Council may bomb them. Yep, it’s all starting to make sense. With all the continuing conflicts, imagining a world without war was starting to seem useless—and now I know it was! Phew!"


"CATNIP!!!"

ROTFLMAO!!!

James said...

Really an amazing news you share that the Obama presidency is that it has denied the Democrats,and the working and thinking by the Presidents is also good and brilliant,denying the democrats i think it is a strange step and may be some reason behind that,great peace of things you told and the news is really useful.
_______________________________
Dissertation

rhhardin said...

I question the modality.

"Should" softens the speaker's confidence in the obliged action being carried out, which confuses the hypotherical which claims to be free of uncertainty.

Which in turn gives it a feeling of something not right.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

Good lord, James. I can only imagine what your dissertations must read like. They should make people read them at SERE.

Chandrika said...

test

Chandrika said...

asdad

Mick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...

THAT was the reason that you, a "lawprof", voted for an ineligible NON natural born Citizen? You had full knowledge that he was born a British Subject. Full knowledge that a pic on a website is proof of NOTHING. Shame!!!
Obama may in fact be a British Subject to THIS VERY DAY. I doubt that you'll write about that. Academia rarely admits that it's wrong.

Mick said...

Seven Machos said...

" There were no good choices to be made in the 2008 Election. Two dull choices. The Republican Party would be in total shambles if McCain had been elected President. And I'm not sure how well the Country would be faring either."



Neither one was eligible. Obama was born a British Subject and McCain was born in Panama, Neither is natural born, and both are traitors. Obama may be a British subject to this day.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Fred4Pres: I think it is bit late, but I do support a no fly zone and curtailing Qadaffi's murder squads. I hope it is in time.

Instead of acting decisively (when the opportunity first presented itself) Obama waited until the last moment to act, in order to build consensus. But what have we gained and what have we lost? Many more people are dying than otherwise would, the zeal of the people we are trying to help has been dampened, and we are still being criticized, even by people who signed up to the plan.

Even if this works out, it's still an Obama failure.

edutcher said...

The Demos love shaking their finger at everyone else. Of course, if someone does it to them, it's being "mean-spirited".

Interesting that the "mean-spirited" ones are the ones who usually beat them.

PS Given the astounding incompetence of The Zero his entire adult (I use the term loosely) life, we have this monument to his incredible vanity, “There’s something special about it... And as time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States. But we should never take it for granted”.

MikeDC said...

Your reason is full of shit, Ann.

The Dems had two years in which they controlled two branches of government and they couldn't even pass a budget. That was someone else's fault, of course, just like we're not really "taking the lead" when going out and waging war in another country without so much as a sniff at fulfilling our constitutional obligations.

Pogo said...

""When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?""

My guess is this:
"Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China."

That is, make us into China, by little steps. They've been doing it since Wilson.

Not much further to go, since the SCOTUS long ago determined that even refusal to participate in economic activity is economic activity and can be regulated.

(Wickard v. Filburn; a farmer grew wheat for his own cows to eat, and that violated Fed farming yield limits, even though he sold none of it.)

Now, not buying health care is economic activity.

That is, the State owns you.

The marginal revolution has been by the collectivists, and they've won.

McCian was Obama with a less-well-developed malignant narcissism.

Jay said...

More smart diplomacy:

European and U.S. forces unleashed warplanes and cruise missiles against Gadhafi on Saturday in a United Nations-backed intervention to prevent the veteran leader from killing civilians as he fights an uprising against his 41-year rule.

But Arab League chief Amr Moussa said what was happening was not what Arabs had envisaged when they called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians,” he said.

In comments carried by Egypt’s official state news agency, Moussa also said he was calling for an emergency Arab League meeting.


Why it is almost as if the Obama Administration is in over their head...

kent said...

Why it is almost as if the Obama Administration is in over their head...

As the steadily mounting evidence amply demonstrates, the Obama administration would find itself "in over its head" attempting to run a mid-sized Campfire Girl bake sale.

AllenS said...

Cut obama some slack, he's on vacation don't cha know. Is this the first time in America's history that a POTUS went on vacation and then the military attacked another country?

WV: mistasho

Libyan mustache.

Paddy O said...

I would also like to affirm the great peace of things you told.

Pogo said...

In any event, apparently Libya wasn't Obama's bracket choice.

GMay said...

"Our resident lefty trolls need to be pushed which of these scenarios they believe. They should not be allowed to get away with snark."

Fuggedaboutit.

I can't wait until the talking points machine finally finishes cranking out the bullets for this one. The spin will be epic!!

As this presidency drags on, you'll notice it takes them longer and longer to show up here and spit out less and less coordinated (let alone coherent) ideas.

kent said...

In any event, apparently Libya wasn't Obama's bracket choice.

Worth re-posting: Barack Obama's Unfinished Bracket

Pogo said...

D'oh!

A day late and a dollar short.

Pogo said...

No, wait!

Great minds.....

kent said...

I can't wait until the talking points machine finally finishes cranking out the bullets for this one. The spin will be epic!!

OLD/OUT: "Not In My Name!"
"No Blood For Oil!"
"The World Can't Wait!"
"Why Are We Attacking a Nation That Hasn't Attacked Us?"
"Bombing and Killing Brown People!"

NEW/IN: "1 Nobel Peace Prize, 3 Simultaneous Mideast Wars! WOOT!!!"
"These Are The Good, Happy Kinds of Bombs!"
"The World Can Wait Just Fine, Actually!"
"Libyan 'Brown People' Aren't As Legitimately Brown As Iraqi 'Brown People, Anyway!"
"Cindy Sheewho -- ?!?"

Belkys said...

used his Jedi mind tricks to force ?? are you calling The One a weak mind?

Comrade X said...

It would have been a little awkward for Congress to impeach Bush in that they authorized his actions.

It would be a little awkward for Congress to impeach Obama for a different reason.

kent said...

Makes that FIVE prominent leftard movers and shakers to publicly disown any/all support of The Won, now that he's officially gone all-out for a Mideast War hat trick:

Hugo Chavez condemns Libya airstrikes as 'madness'

Wowzers.

Pogo said...

Maybe Chavez is just referring to the 1980s British ska group.

You know, the heavy heavy monster sound, the nuttiest sound around.

So if you've come in off the street
And you're beginning to feel the heat
Well listen buster
You better start to move your feet
To the rockinest, rock-steady beat
Of Madness

One step beyond!

The Crack Emcee said...

First off, I voted for McCain, and I did so with conviction (that's how I roll) and I did it for the good of the country - not to make some silly point I could refer to later as a lesson for anybody. Moreover, it is still my learned anti-cult opinion that anyone who considers themselves educated and went along with, or condoned, what the press was doing during that awful time (Seen any photos of Obama with a halo lately?) participated in an evil against this nation and should come clean for the sake of it and (for lack of a better term) their own soul.

If you thought George Bush acted appropriately, then you should see that one benefit of the Obama presidency is that it has denied the Democrats the ability to stand at a distance and criticize, as if they were above that sort of thing. This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama: "When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"

Ann, you fucked up. You got swindled. You got conned. You got took. Bamboozled. Fooled. Racist-assed Oprah's feminism said, "Look over there", and you looked. You can't hide it. You can't justify it. All you can do is tell the truth or make the lie bigger. Underline it. Grab a pair of readers and tell the rest of us "Try these."

It's especially annoying because you're a hippie and, let's face it, hippies are especially annoying because that's nothing to be proud of, reducing the lives of others to homeroom teachers, or camp counselors, rather than friends you can enjoy things with. I'd rather see you honestly confront something - anything - besides your wants, fluffing your image, and me. But the upside is (since you do take me back to everything I learned during my own political awakening) it does give me yet another opportunity to remember Reagan and say, "There you go again,..." as I - a mere ghetto dweller - watch the great professor, the lawyer, the constitutional scholar, like Darth Vader at the local cineplex back then, spinning off into the cosmos for what, once again, seems like the first of a billion times.

It just never gets old.

The Crack Emcee said...

Pogo - madness:

Brilliace. Fucking brilliance, I tell ya.

ricpic said...

McCain was nominated because the Republican leadership refused and still refuses to hold closed primaries. The only plausible conclusion is that they want the Marx Stream Media to have a huge impact on the Republican selection process. On the Tea Party struggle to wrest control of the party from Democrats-lite hangs the fate of the nation.

Mick said...

Obama should just be REMOVED, since he is a Usurper, and not a legal POTUS (he was born, and still may be a British subject).
Here is an example of FRAUD on the SCOTUS (yes Fraud on the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land), in an amicus brief filed by Immigration Reform Law Inst. (IRLI) in the Flores-Villar case. They are protecting Obama by mis- quoting John Bingham. Do you think that leaving out "OF PARENTS" is an accident?

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/irli-got-some-splainin-to-do/

As a "law prof", do you care about fraud on the SCOTUS?

Mick said...

ricpic said...

"McCain was nominated because the Republican leadership refused and still refuses to hold closed primaries. The only plausible conclusion is that they want the Marx Stream Media to have a huge impact on the Republican selection process. On the Tea Party struggle to wrest control of the party from Democrats-lite hangs the fate of the nation."



Wrong. McCain was never meant to win. TPTB (Central Banker World Debt masters) had already chosen Obama to finish the final touches of the destruction of the Sovereignty of We the People.
McCain, being ineligible (not natural born since he was born in Panama) gave cover for the Usurper Obama (born British) to win.

Then Obama's handlers corrupted the Democratic Primary Caucus process to have him win the Primary.

McCain would have the best standing to call Obama on his non natural born Status, and he was neutralized, since He and ALL of congress knows neither was eligible. They are ALL committing Treason.

Why do you think McCain stopped Palin from attacking Obama's associations w/ Ayers and Wright. He was only there to provide cover. The fix was in. By the way, that Resolution 511 hearing, that has no force in law, and declared McCain to be a Natural Born Citizen, was sponsored by Obama.

knox said...

Our resident lefty trolls need to be pushed which of these scenarios they believe. They should not be allowed to get away with snark.

Good luck w that

Marshal said...

That's a terrible reason to vote for someone. Rewarding irresponsibility encourages it.

rdkraus said...

My recollection is that Bush went to Congress and got authorization to act (I was against it in Iraq, but that's another issue).

Contra - Obama has attacked a foreign country (Libya) which did not attack us and poses no threat to us. Despite waiting almost 3 weeks (from the beginning of their civil war), he never went to Congress to ask them to declare war or give him authorization.

Isn't this really the first clear action which would support impeachment, ie. high crimes and misdemeanors, which we've seen in decades?

I'm pretty sure there's a clear constitutional ground for this.

Robert Cook said...

Trad Guy hallucinates,

"...while borrowing three trillion dollars from China to spend on Nationalized Health along with neat high speed trains and windmills...."

Hahahahahaha!

Comrade X said...

sorry rdkraus, Congress isn't going to impeach our first female president.

rdkraus said...

I know that Comrade, but ya know,

just sayin

as they say.

Robert Cook said...

"Lessee...GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld had a plan. They had plans within plans, counter plans for when those plans didn't work, and contingencies. They had a reason that had strategic and tactical importance to the safety of America that they could articulate. They moved to remove what they and every other country thought was a massive threat to the US; they considered that regime change would mean they would have to replace the regime and created plans for what that replacement would be, and they used available intelligence to articulate various reasonable factions of a relatively functioning society that could seemingly step up to those roles. The country at issue had had, at least, a functioning middle class with functioning civil institutions such as universities, civil forces like police and fire, hospitals, functioning transportation networks. They knew what their objectives were. Not to mention the thousands of hours spent trying to understand the law to date and then legally coming up with legal mechanisms for warfare, capturing of combatants, holding of them, etc., tens or hundreds of thousands of hours spent reworking military policy wrt doctrine, R&D development, procurement, etc. And all of that planning, intelligence, diplomacy, etc. didn't exactly go as planned."

Do you really believe any of this absolute horseshit? Do you honestly believe the Bush Administration had any fucking clue as to what they were doing?

Robert Cook said...

"What else does the left want? No wars at all?"

Yeah...what do those fucking kooks want, anyway? We've GOT to have wars so we can keep taking shit from other countries that we want for ourselves! Without resort to our bully boy tactics, how would we get others in the world to do what we want them to?

Robert Cook said...

"We get a guy like Mitch Daniels in there, and we can do some truly awesome, even revolutionary things."

Oh my fucking gawd! Hahahahahahahaha!

peter hoh said...

careful Seven, Pasta's gonna accuse you of going all liberal for liking Daniels.

Just Lurking said...

Despite waiting almost 3 weeks (from the beginning of their civil war), he never went to Congress to ask them to declare war or give him authorization.

He wanted guidance and backing from the UN. That's where his allegiance is. Screw the Congress and the US Constitution. He doesn't answer to them.

Mike in Keller said...

The Democrats still will stand at a distance and criticize. To not do so would require a logic structure that they have yet to evolve.

junyo said...

Yeah...what do those fucking kooks want, anyway? We've GOT to have wars so we can keep taking shit from other countries that we want for ourselves! Without resort to our bully boy tactics, how would we get others in the world to do what we want them to?
And what's a few thousand murdered brown people, or a little genocide, as long as we're not seen as bullies, amiright Bobbie?

Fen said...

Libtard: We've GOT to have wars so we can keep taking shit from other countries that we want for ourselves!

4 million 3rd-worlders had their bandwidth stolen so you could post that nonsense.

Please be more responsible with other people's resources.

You could also breath less.

Jay said...

We've GOT to have wars so we can keep taking shit from other countries that we want for ourselves!

When the US installed a democratic form of government and rebuilt Japan, what, exactly did we "take" bozo?

West said...

Sorry, Ann, but there is stiil absolutely no excuse for having voted for Obama. It was a bad call then, and that merely becomes more obvious by the day.

Jay said...

he never went to Congress to ask them to declare war or give him authorization.


No, but we went to the Arab League, which has since changed its mind, and the UN security council.

Why it is almost as if the "Lecturer on Constitutional Law" doesn't understand the constitution.

Gabriel said...

@Robert Cook:

Do you honestly believe the Bush Administration had any fucking clue as to what they were doing?

Nobody believes they knew what they were doing. What is being pointed out here is that they had plans, few of which survived conflict with reality.

Obama doesn't even have that much. That is wha is being said here. Not that Bush did a great job with foreign wars and Obama is doing lousy.

Three years ago Obama said that what Obama is doing now is illegal. That's the topic here. He ran against Bush, accusing McCain of being a thrid term for Bush. Now Obama is Bush's third term. Why?

Fen said...

while borrowing three trillion dollars from China to spend on Nationalized Health along with neat high speed trains and windmills

Worse. In my circles, people have moved on to discussing whether China is wise enough to adopt and manage Libterty. Maybe even learn from the mistakes we made. Everyone sees Her as the next superpower in a world where America has been reduced to the status and influence of the UK and France.

Good news: We're no longer the world's Policeman.

Bad news: We're no longer the world's Policeman

Lincolntf said...

Obama, and the gals who tell him what to do, have finally run up against a reality that everyone with the slightest bit of education in world/military history knows instinctively. Pacifism is the greatest ally of tyranny.

kent said...

Three years ago Obama said that what Obama is doing now is illegal. That's the topic here.

Admirably and inarguably put.

Any further tergiversation, from this point onward, should serve as de facto evidence of bad faith argument.

junyo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
junyo said...

McCain was nominated because the Republican leadership refused and still refuses to hold closed primaries.

McCain was nominated for the same reason Kerry was nominated in '04; the party leadership thought that they could outsmart the electorate and poach votes with a candidate that the base hated.

Kerry was a waste of skin, but he was a waste of skin with a lot of medals for some war or some junk, and the rednecks like medals and wars and guns so they'll vote for him. The slightest bit of investigation would have disabused anyone with the slightest analytical skills from that notion, but Dems were convinced that the only way to beat Bush was to nominate someone who looked 'tough' on national security, and on that side of the fence, the pickings on that score are slim.

McCain was nominated because Bush has damaged the republican brand so badly that we need to nominate a year who's palatable to our base, yet hates us, because if he hates us, the Dems will love him. Except Dems hatred of Republicans is now Pavlovian, thus conceding that your last guy was scum, but vote for our next guy wasn't the marketing masterstroke they imagined it to be. Also, McCain held the title of "Worst Campaigner Ever" until Alvin Green came along.

Yet, after swearing that I'd sit home rather than vote for McCain, I saw all of this coming when BHO got the nom. Held my nose and voted for McCain. There are a lot of people trying to rationalize how great it is that McCain didn't win. I want some of what you people are smoking.

Thomas said...

1960 Chevrolet Corvair!

edutcher said...

Gabriel said...
@Robert Cook:

Do you honestly believe the Bush Administration had any fucking clue as to what they were doing?

Nobody believes they knew what they were doing. What is being pointed out here is that they had plans, few of which survived conflict with reality.


Actually they did know what they were doing. They cleaned out Saddam's regime in a month.

If State hadn't been running the occupation, things might have worked out better, but they planned the campaign wonderfully.

And it's generally acknowledged no plan survives the first contact intact.

turtle said...

Is there an Ă˜bama doctrine? Because if there is, it certainly isn't apparent.

As Harry Nilsson so cleverly penned in "The Point";

"A point in every direction, is the same as no point at all" -The Pointed Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Point!

jr565 said...

Seven Machos wrote:
The best part is Obama is a one-termer. We get a guy like Mitch Daniels in there, and we can do some truly awesome, even revolutionary things.

I don't know that he is a one termer. Even though he is essentially becoming a neo con lite on foreign policy at least at the end of the day it's the liberals and dems that will vote for him and I dont have faith that they are principled in their vote. Their calculus will be that yes he enacted some bad policies, but he's not a rethuglican, who would implement even worse policies. He might lose some core libs like Michael Moore, but the rank and file dems are simply loyal to party, so will not waver.
Plus, they'll start arguing that if a conservative is elected all unions will be destroyed, all women will not be able to vote again, blacks will be put back into slavery, and we will wage war on the entire middle east, and become a theocracy. In other words, they merely push the buttons and their small minded constituency will bark, regardless of whether or not the candidate has even remotely carried out any of his liberal agenda.
So, Im actually worried that despite his flaws and mistakes and despite the economy, he will STILL get a second term out of it unless republicans can put out a candidate who can appeal to conservatives but also moderates and swing voters. ANd I don't know that we have such a candidate (yet!).

jr565 said...

"When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"


When cant they whine and finger point? Here's what they'll do - BLAME BUSH. In other words, whine and finger point.
One of the faulty premises of the argument that the democrats will only act responsibly on the war on terror or on the economy is when they are in charge or own the problem is that I'm not convinced that even being in charge they will ever own the problem.
The politicians have an endless supply of blaming the other guy at the ready, and their followers simply don't care what happens, so long as it's their guy doing it. Obama could be waterboarding KSM's kids before dropping them from planes attacked to bombs to blow up Qadaffi's palace, and the vast majority of dems would still not give it a moments thought and still pull the lever.
Becauase dems and libs are not principled voters. Any and all issues are simply means to an end, and that end is, how to get their guys into power. Period.

jr565 said...

"When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"


When cant they whine and finger point? Here's what they'll do - BLAME BUSH. In other words, whine and finger point.
One of the faulty premises of the argument that the democrats will only act responsibly on the war on terror or on the economy is when they are in charge or own the problem is that I'm not convinced that even being in charge they will ever own the problem.
The politicians have an endless supply of blaming the other guy at the ready, and their followers simply don't care what happens, so long as it's their guy doing it. Obama could be waterboarding KSM's kids before dropping them from planes attacked to bombs to blow up Qadaffi's palace, and the vast majority of dems would still not give it a moments thought and still pull the lever.
Becauase dems and libs are not principled voters. Any and all issues are simply means to an end, and that end is, how to get their guys into power. Period.

Mister Snitch! said...

Announcement:

Henceforth, the Military wishes to be referred to as the Hillitary. Yes Ma'am, it does.

That is all.

Milwaukee said...

I'm not sure about McCain, whether or not he would have found the principles he forsook in his pursuit of office. He was my vote. We do have a problem, and impeachment is not an option, the Democrats showed that with Clinton. Will Carter becoming out in support of Libyan military action?

But hey, look at the bright side. The Prez is in the 99.9th percentile on his bracket picks. Get down! Of course, we are not hearing one darn thing about an NCAA College Football Championship Tournament. How lame is that.

The Republican Party should consider holding closed primaries: only for party members. (Why do states finance primary elections, which are party matters?) Crossover voting helps moderates when we need conservatives. Further, the blue-bloods, and those in the Establishment, need to realize what they need to be about.

Phil 3:14 said...

McCain was nominated for the same reason Kerry was nominated in '04; the party leadership thought that they could outsmart the electorate and poach votes with a candidate that the base hated.

And here I thought the primary voters got McCain the nomination! Shows you what I know.

Just Lurking said...

This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama: "When [the Democrats] can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?"

They will yearn for an America that was more like authoritarian China (their hero!), and whine about how hard it is to govern a country like this, what with all those pesky checks and balances, and a constitution written in some old language they can't be expected to understand. And they will continue to demonize the opposition as a force so evil that violent overthrow might just be acceptable, if do-over elections fail to force them out.

The Democratic Party panders to a base which is made up of people who are convinced they are doing Gaia's work, and are smarter, superior, and gosh darn it, right about everything. Zealots are not easily swayed by reality and reason. They would rather embrace hypocrisy as a weapon in their fight for truthiness and justness, than really understand and explain why their guy is doing the same things as the guy they vilified for eight years as the epitome of corruption and stupidity.

They only way out of this hyper-partisan madness is if the Facebook generation, with it's thumbs-up but no thumbs-down mentality, chooses to reject talking points and groupthink in favor of independent critical thinking. Will that happen? Maybe... when the bill comes due and they realize that they are the ones they have been waiting for to pay it.

Alex said...

If Obama can improve his poll ratings, after the pounding he got from the passage of Obamacare; the democrats will rally round him like nobody's business!

The reason Obama will be re-elected is because the MSM is up his ass like never in history.

pumping-irony said...

Well, if this war is another quagmire it's 'cause Bush's stupid wars caused us to use all our ammunition. So there.

- Joe Biden

kent said...

OBAMA GHRAIB: 'Kill team' in Afghanistan posed for photos with murdered civilians...

The War Crimes Presidency.

junyo said...

And here I thought the primary voters got McCain the nomination! Shows you what I know.
So primary voters where you are vote in a vacuum, without being steered by listening to endorsements and talking heads? Where is this magical land?

peter hoh said...

2008 was the first Republican primary since 1980 in which the party insiders had not effectively anointed a front runner a year earlier.

Methadras said...

Ann, you voted for Erkle because he wasn't a stodgy old white man. You figured the political n00b could do the job, because the job wasn't that big of a deal. Guess what, Erkle has check out. He only cares for the trappings and benefits of the job, not the real, hard consequences required that spring forth from the decisions made in that position and then to live with them and not have them come back to haunt you politically.

Methadras said...

Just Lurking said...

and a constitution written in some old language they can't be expected to understand.


Oh, you mean in plain English vs. legalese? Yeah, that should confuse any post-American, community organizing activist, who just happens to be a lawyer and was a senator for only 2 years without a single piece of legislation to his name.

Methadras said...

Robert Cook said...

Do you really believe any of this absolute horseshit? Do you honestly believe the Bush Administration had any fucking clue as to what they were doing?


Of course they did. They had to ask their joint chiefs to draw up battle plans, they had to coordinate the entire coalition of the willing, they had command and control, they had coordinate and calculate logistics, immediate diplomatic consequences, political fallout, etc. etc. So yes, they knew exactly what they were doing in the face of the reality of the clear hardships of war.

Yeah...what do those fucking kooks want, anyway? We've GOT to have wars so we can keep taking shit from other countries that we want for ourselves!

The only kook here is you. You and your kind are the most unrealistic people on earth. You yearn for something you could never achieve and then cry about it when you don't get it. Your arguments die at no blood for oil in the face of $4 gasoline at the pump, do they not? In fact, you and your kind should be celebrating that fact and ask that it be $10 so you can achieve the pressure wave of economic disaster that will ensue to remove people from their cars.

Oh sure, Libya, a country twice the size of Texas with only 6 million inhabitants really has what we want, yet you can't articulate a single iota of what that is. I could give two shits about Libya or Libyans. However, I will give a shit if a sociopath like Qaddafi is gone, but you will most likely weep for him. You are the nut, you are the kook. Your ideas are the landscape of insanity and you occupy a large acreage within it.

Methadras said...

kent said...

... and now the Jug-Eared Jesus has lost yet another (formerly) slavish fanboy devotee: self-appointed maximum man-crush Andrew Sullivan:

"And I think it, I’m just, I’m just, I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. I mean this is a, this, this initiative, this, this, this no-fly zone, this war essentially, is [...] this politicized Clintonian mess."

Oh. MY.


Sorry Little Miss Sullivan, you can't get your jizz back.

wv = heemen = What Sully calls Obama's man chowder as he's laughing on his kneepads.

vbspurs said...

Junyo wrote:

Yet, after swearing that I'd sit home rather than vote for McCain, I saw all of this coming when BHO got the nom. Held my nose and voted for McCain. There are a lot of people trying to rationalize how great it is that McCain didn't win. I want some of what you people are smoking.

I veer from thinking exactly what you wrote about the 2008 election outcome, to the euphoria Seven Machos feels. It's a sickening pendulum inside me, albeit at my inner-most core I would take ANYONE but Obama, no matter what.

And I too think Obama is an one-termer. But then McCain would've been, too.

There I go again, Jimmy.

Silverdrake said...

vbspurs said "albeit at my inner-most core I would take ANYONE but Obama, no matter what."

Ever read Hillary's "Village" book? She describes what is no less than an Orwellian totalitarianism, with mandatory-attendance day care centers indoctrinating children into the state-approved mindset beginning at four months of age. Yet she would have been a better president than Obama. (The fact that her duly-won nomination was stolen from her by the D-N-C using their "super-delegates" to APPOINT Obama the candidate is why I will never again call the Democrat party "democratic.")