They’re Barely Even Trying Anymore…
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Yes, this is another post on Libya. As followers of this blog know, I first drew the conclusion that it was an illegal war here, and have since talked about it here, here and here. Let me be clear where I stand. I believe he was required to get Congressional approval first. And I believe Congress should have given it to him. But since they haven’t, and there is no attack or even imminent threat to the US or its troops, he can’t justify making war on Libya.
And it seems that the issue is not going away yet, and to their credit, ABC News Grilled Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the subject yesterday:
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”
“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest and it was an interest for all of the reasons Secretary Clinton talked about. The engagement of the Arabs, the engagement of the Europeans, the general humanitarian question that was at stake,” he said.
Gates explained that there was more at stake, however. “There was another piece of this though, that certainly was a consideration. You’ve had revolutions on both the East and the West of Libya,” he said, emphasizing the potential wave of refugees from Libya could have destabilized Tunisia and Egypt.
“So you had a potentially significantly destabilizing event taking place in Libya that put at risk potentially the revolutions in both Tunisia and Egypt,” the Secretary said. “And that was another consideration I think we took into account.”
Now, first, I will put aside my annoyance at this administration recognizing that uncontrolled immigration is a problem—for other countries.
But look, all of those are reasonable arguments to make, to Congress. But none of that is even remotely covered under the War Powers Act or the President’s inherent powers as commander in chief.
Also the National Review held a “symposium” on the subject, apparently soliciting different views on the legality of the war here. They are deliberately choosing a variety of voices and thus they are all over the map. I wouldn’t focus too much on the credentials of the persons saying it, so much as the quality of their argument when evaluating their stances. On the other hand, if you want to evaluate their potential impact, who they are matters, and one person who matters much more for who he is than what he says is Bruce Ackerman. Ackerman is considered one of the leading constitutional authorities on the left and has been called in by Democrats to discuss constitutional matters in the past—for instance, he advised them on Bush v. Gore.
As for the quality of his argument, it’s not so much he said anything wrong, it’s just that coming from him, I can’t take it seriously. Full disclosure, this is another one of my professors and I know the guy well enough that… I wouldn’t say he doesn’t care about the Constitution so much as that his concept of what the Constitution is, is unrecognizable to most people. He believes the Constitution can be amended without an amendment by this complicated and amorphous process he calls the “Constitutional moment.” Oh, and the Constitutional moments that he believes to have existed always just happen to favor liberal causes—such as claiming that by passing and retaining the New Deal, they amended the Constitution in some unspecified way. On the other hand, when Professor Michael McConnell skewered his ideas by pointing out that you could just as easily argue that the institution of Jim Crow was a “Constitutional moment” amending the Constitution by effectively repealing the 14th and 15th amendments (if not the 13th as well), Ackerman didn’t have a very good answer to that argument even as he rejected it. Oh, and my favorite part is that supposedly “we the people” were amending the Constitution in the 1930’s in relationship to the New Deal (and he never made it clear whether it just made the New Deal Constitutional, or mandatory), but even as we amended it, we had no idea we were amending it.
And let me pause, before going on and say, no, I am not misrepresenting his views. I have explained this to about ten people and they all thought, “that can’t be what he really thinks. That’s crazy!” Yes, it is crazy, and yes, it is what he thinks.
So I can’t take him very seriously in claiming that this violated the Constitution, because he believes in some wacky version of the Constitution that most us don’t believe exists. But there are many liberals who have taken him seriously in the past and might in the future.
By the way, also today we have another person to add to the list of people who claimed that the Constitution demanded that the President seek congressional approval before attacking another country (unless we have been attacked or an attack was imminent)… Hillary Clinton:
(Via Outside the Beltway.) To his credit, in the same interview with Gates, ABC’s Jake Tapper threw a small clip from that speech in Hillary’s face, and she really didn’t have a very good answer to that, but I really wanted you to watch the whole speech because in context it sounds even worse, than Tapper’s snippet. I mean she is mentioning that there is a 2001 War Powers Resolution against al Qaeda, which might have arguably been stretched to that situation. And Iran appeared to be supplying if not training or directing many of the insurgents killing our soldiers, which comes much closer to meeting the requirements of the War Powers Act. Really, seriously, she makes the case for attacking Iran much more compelling than attacking Libya.
You can also watch the full Tapper/Gates/Hilldog interview, here:
Hilldog’s part comes at about 13:00, give or take a lot.
Meanwhile all of this has resulted in Obama finally deciding he needed to address the nation. Of course he won’t back off his decision not to have an oval office address, so instead he will do this:
US President Barack Obama prepared Monday to give a prime-time address to the nation aimed at winning the support of a war-weary American public for the military intervention in Libya.
After inheriting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president finds himself embroiled in yet another conflict, this time one of his own choosing and one that many at home are not convinced by.
In his address at 7:30 pm (2330 GMT) from the National Defense University in Washington, Obama must win over a largely skeptical public preoccupied by domestic economic concerns and unclear what the Libya endgame is.
Obama, who has been criticized since military action began nine days ago for not getting his message across, will also give interviews on Tuesday with the anchors of three US television networks, the White House said.
Lawmakers, including many from Obama’s own Democratic Party, are angry Congress was not consulted before troops were deployed and have raised concerns the Libya mission is ill-defined and the exit strategy unclear.
(emphasis added.) We’ll see if he manages to convince people.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Hillary and gates appeared on two news shows, it appears he needs a minder to keep him on a short leash as on both shows she contradicted him.
dunce (b89258) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:30 pmand
are the funny parts of this AFP article. Poor awesome Obama inherited a mess, and the reason we are complaining is that we need it explained more slowly. You know, W inherited a middle east that was so bad they flew planes into our buildings. He inherited a CIA director from Clinton who told him Saddam had WMDs, and he also inherited a regime change policy from Clinton. Strange that Republicans can’t pass the buck. Obama ran claiming he was up to a variety of tasks that now he complains he inherited.
I also love that they try to give the responsible criticisms the GOP has raised to the democrats.
He’ll address the MSM’s big three liberal networks, but he won’t sit in the oval office and address the American people whose loved ones are fighting in a war. And as Aaron hints, this is entirely about his stubborn ego.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:40 pmKineyic military actions do not require The One to follow the Constitution.
JÐ (85b089) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:48 pmIn the strictest sense, yes, he ‘inherited’ Afghanistan, but remember he also campaigned on the claim that, The war in Afghanistan is fundamental to the defense of our people.
And later, “The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight. And we won’t defeat it overnight,” the president said. “But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9-11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”
[emph. added]
Aaron, William Saletan’s piece brings an interesting perspective to whatever it is that is taking place in Libya and the salient point of observing a troubling substitution of foreign for congressional authority.
Dana (9f3823) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:50 pmKinetic military actions do not require The One to follow the Constitution.
JÐ (d48c3b) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:54 pmoh yeah, this is also internationalism, as though congress stops having a say. interestingly, ackerman says something similar–and that this is unacceptable. really i can’t fault what ackerman says, except for the greater context of what i know he believes.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/28/2011 @ 12:55 pmThe Constitution gives to Congress the power to declare war; the Constitution also specifies that the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
What the Constitution does not say is that the armed forces of the United States cannot be used outside of our borders or on foreign soil without a declaration of war, or that the President’s authority as commander-in-chief is limited to the boundaries of the United States absent such a declaration. Perhaps the Framers thought this self-evident, or perhaps they intended to give the President some latitude; given that one of the main concerns in the late eighteenth century was piracy, it seems at least reasonable that the Framers would not have restricted the commander-in-chief’s authority on the high seas.
What, exactly, is the enforcement mechanism? If the Congress tells the President that no, his use of the armed forces in Libya must cease, how does the Congress actually enforce such an order? They can cut off funds, but if the forces are in place, the funds — for fuel, for the aircraft, for all of the equipment of war — have already been spent. They can impeach the President and replace him, but that takes time.
The Dana who isn't a lawyer (3e4784) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:02 pmPiracy is specifically mentioned in the constitution. Identifying it and fighting it are powers granted by it.
But it’s under the powers of Congress rather than the executive.
The way the constitution sets up use of our military is that the congress sets a task and the president executes it. Congress realized this is too slow in an emergency, so they have pre-authorized any situation where we’ve been attacked or need to respond to an imminent danger (so unlike Libya).
I find it very instructive that one of the concerns if the late 18th century was piracy, and the constitution specifically assigned that issue to the congress rather than the president. The President doesn’t get to sit around coming up with laws to enforce or things to do with the federal government’s power. He simply uses the power of the government to execute the wishes of congress.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:11 pmSo when will Gates and Hillarity criticize Qaddafi for his socialist death squads?
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:12 pmNo enforcement mechanism. The courts will rule it a political question if anyone tries to sue. Only choices are cutting off funding, impeaching, or acquiescing.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:14 pmWe invaded Libya to protect Western European Oil.
It is just when we do it to protect US Interests that is becomes Criminal.
At least, that is what the Democrats would have me believe.
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:14 pmI wonder if Rumsfeld is laughing at the DoD?
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:15 pm“In the strictest sense, yes, he ‘inherited’ Afghanistan…”
You mean someone left it to him in a will???
Seems to me more like he offered to take it in, like a guy what finds a stray puppy…that then turns out to be a rabid pit bull.
Dave Surls (6b6d8c) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:22 pmForrest for the trees ….
while Terrence Lakin rots.
Elmo (3fe9d2) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:27 pmSorta. He should have known the Afghanistan conflict was very difficult. A lot of people on the left have pretended that Iraq made it harder, when it’s clear it made it much easier (enemy resources flooded into Iraq, a war we could win, and we faced them advantageously there).
I think it’s also clear that at some points, flooding Afghanistan with our troops wouldn’t yield an advantage. We’re trying to win hearts and minds slowly when we lack the infrastructure to protect a lot of troops.
Anyway, I see it as Obama telling him mom he knows how to take care of the puppy he just found, and then complaining that he inherited the mess it just made.
Not that Bush didn’t also inherit Afghanistan. That country was in a position where it had to be dealt with since the 1990s. I still wonder what was on those documents Sandy Berger destroyed.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:28 pmWhat’s really your point?
The Emperor (107ff6) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:36 pmJust about every president has waged war without a declaration, be it agains the Barbary Pirates (who were actually North African nations we had previously conducted treaties with), the Confederacy, Indian tribes, Carribean nations, Wilson supporting the Russian Civil War (and the Mexican), Korea, Vietnam, Reagan invading Granada, Bush Sr in Panama, Clinton in Kosovo, etc. What were we doing in Haiti during WWI or Iceland and Morocco during WWII? The predident has always had authority to use the military as he deems necessary, to commit acts of war without a formal declaration of war. There ought to be some modern clarification as to when some kind of congressional action a la declaration is required, but I am not much troubled by Constitutional issues here. Education, environment, healthcare, energy on the other hand…
I’m troubled about why, how, and who is conducting this operation, and to what end. That’s what the Commander in Chief ought to explain.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:37 pmWas anyone else struck at how much better Tapper is on This Week ? I liked him before, even though he comes from a lefty background, because he was not biased, as best I could tell. Amanpour loves the sound of her own voices and guests are props for her. The ratings have tanked since she took over. I wonder if she will be “on assignment” more now.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:40 pm“In the strictest sense, yes, he ‘inherited’ Afghanistan…”
You mean someone left it to him in a will???
Dave Surls,
I worded it that way because in the post, the linked wording sounded to me like, poor President Obama, he was an innocent who just inherited these wars from Bush and now he’s left clean them up, when in actuality, as I quoted in comment #4, Obama campaigned on Afghanistan and claimed it was fundamental to the defense of our people.
Dana (9f3823) — 3/28/2011 @ 1:44 pmI feel a drinking game coming on. We should all just select our favorite Obama phrases, and our favorite beverages, and park ourselves in front of the TV as he tries to explain why Libya is different from Yemen, or Syria, or any other country in Africa or the Middle East. The winner will be the first to pass out. My phrase: Let me be clear.
Rochf (f3fbb0) — 3/28/2011 @ 2:01 pmThey don’t try because they don’t care… what you think.
steve (369bc6) — 3/28/2011 @ 2:01 pmThe Founders understood that war can be declared by either deed or word, i.e. a state of war can be initiated by an act of war, or by some kind of public statement. As CiC, the President has the right and duty to deal with an existing state of war. What he doesn’t have is the right to initiate a state of war without Conress’s permission. What other point is there is giving Congress the power to declare war?
Truman at least had Congress’s informal approval for the Korean War. Polk got censured over the Mexican-American War (he provoked Mexico by sending troops into a disputed border area). I can’t think of any other examples where an American President initiated a war without Congressional permission (wars initiated by the other side don’t require Congressional permission to respond to).
LarryD (feb78b) — 3/28/2011 @ 2:06 pmThis is such a repeated point.
Few are saying Obama needs precisely a “formal declaration of war”.
We’re saying this is congress’s authority to assign such a task to the president. Call it an AUMF. Call it a treaty. Call it a law. Call it a resolution.
This is congress’s power. I realize that presidents have violated the constitution so many times. Hell, W used those signing statements.
That is relevant politically. It’s true that there will probably be no legal action taken despite the constitution being unambiguous.
Read Article 1 section 8. A lot of the examples you cited are specifically named as congress’s power. The executive should execute congress’s resolutions on a variety of congress’s powers. And in fact, congress did authorize in some fashion many of your examples, albeit in some cases did so after the fact.
It does matter in a practical sense that many presidents have flouted the constitution to grab more power in a crisis, but it doesn’t matter in terms of reading the constitution and determining that congress has to authorize this war.
Of course, amph’s stated concerns seem more urgent and important today, but I think they are far, far less important. Bush got the USA back on the right track with the people’s representatives authorizing war, and that is very important.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 2:07 pmI’m truly loath to discuss or mention anything (excl point) which could fall under the purview of intel.
But a perfect storm is brewing. And part of this storm, is comprised in/of/by the manner in which we’re not going after Kuhdaffy.
The delegation of command and control, the delegation of assets. And their continuing presence in the region (NO specifics beyond that).
It’s a perfect storm. For epic disaster. World War Three is beginning … right now … before our very eyes, and (as I’ve harangued before) … we’ll be on the wrong side. As per the first comment to post (mine), in the Times/Luttwak piece, last week (now long deleted).
Elmo (3fe9d2) — 3/28/2011 @ 2:08 pmDustin –
Good points all. I still would say that this issue is not as clear cut as the others.
It is astounding, and short sighted, how he has ignored congress in this.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 3/28/2011 @ 2:19 pmThe real problem isn’t that he didn’t inform Congress or get permission; doesn’t the War Powers Act say he can’t deploy forces longer than 48 hours without informing and they can only stay 60 days + 30 days for withdrawal without permission? People stopped talking about that pretty fast and are now on the real one: there was no pressing national security need. You have to ask Congress first Barack. This is far more reckless constitutionally than anything Bush ever did. Both Afghanistan and Iraq basically had declarations of war with their respective AUMFs.
This Administration had no idea what to do before Hilary pushed Gates aside and Obama finally made a decision. Now they still have no idea what to do so they just hope that our military might will just make it all right in the end. This sounds a lot like George Bush’s Iraq thinking from 2003-2006, which was none too good.
They’re also setting a dangerous precedent for the president to go off and bomb whoever he or she wants, whenever, just because they have a plausible moral argument. You say why invade Iraq when Country X is so bad? Well Barack Obama just gave us the Obama Doctrine: rushing into war is okay, as long as you have a plausible urgent moral justification and you don’t use ground troops because then it’s stupid Bush imperialism.
Just great.
DeepElemBlues (a78b16) — 3/28/2011 @ 2:57 pmShouldn’t say “and get permission” before the semicolon in the first line, big typo there.
DeepElemBlues (a78b16) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:00 pm“Truman at least had Congress’s informal approval for the Korean War.”
That’s nice.
Spares you the trouble of having to take a vote.
Dave Surls (6b6d8c) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:01 pmIn the srictest sense yes he inherited afghanistan
Ya mean Hamid Karzai left it to him in his will. 😉
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:09 pmstrictest*
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:11 pmDeepElemBlues, the WPA requires that we be under attack or serious threat. That’s really not the case here.
It also wasn’t the case for Operation Just Cause. Which just goes to show that the modern President has never really been fully compliant with this restriction on his freedom of action.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:25 pmCertainly Obama has never even attempted to explain away the myriad of times he’s broken his campaign promises, and never even attempted to explain away these hypocrisies. Not even trying anymore? He never tried at all.
Every single “moral imperative” that supposedly justified his election has been proven to be a brazen lie.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:32 pmthe left will say nothing about this but will insist nuclear power is evil except when iran uses it.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:37 pmDeepElemBlues wrote:
And if the President doesn’t get permission, and still refuses to withdraw the troops, how does the Congress enforce its will?
The realistic Dana (5a4fb2) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:45 pmLook- let’s cut the crap. Obama got involved in Libya because his advisors told him doing nothing looks bad, and if he wants to be re-elected he should appear to Do Something
BDJ (b776af) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:50 pmRealistic Dana, it’s options are defunding or impeaching. BNoth are rather blunt instruments.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/28/2011 @ 3:55 pmhttp://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/before-libya-white-house-must-negotiate-with-abc/
narciso (b545d5) — 3/28/2011 @ 4:05 pmmeanwhile “it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.”
the other money quote is where he has to backtrack: “I think it’s in America’s international — in America’s national interest…”
read it all there right there on the First Lying Bastard’s web page… it’s towards the bottom, but the whole interview is nauseating.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/28/2011 @ 4:31 pmthey aren’t trying at all: they don’t give a tinker’s damn what anyone thinks.
Yeah, I appreciate at least this much. I am honest enough to admit that as clear as I think this is, a lot of Presidents have not agreed.
Even if you don’t agree with my POV, it is bewildering that Obama hasn’t gone ahead with congress anyway. It causes a great deal of flack for him, and I guess sometimes agitation is its own end for Obama, but it really seems lazy and sloppy rather than planned to me. He changed his mind too late to amend his precious international schedule… I really think that’s all it took for what I see as a constitutional crisis.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 5:26 pmHe changed his mind too late to amend his precious international schedule… I really think that’s all it took for what I see as a constitutional crisis.
I doubt that consideration really mattered to him. If something is really important to him, he has changed his international schedule (for instance, during the passage of Obamacare).
More likely, I think: he thought Congress would refuse to authorize action, so he decided to bypass them.
Amanpour loves the sound of her own voices and guests are props for her
I had no real views on Ms. Amanpour before she took over the show; but she lost most of her credibility with me when she featured Qdaffy’s sons two weeks in a row for “exclusive” interviews, and only in the second week did she bother to have an opposition spokesman as a guest–and since he was Qdaffy’s former UN ambassador, it’s hard to say if he really represented the opposition. A true journalistic coup such as interviewing one of the actual opposition leaders she apparently didn’t even think of doing.
kishnevi (437df2) — 3/28/2011 @ 5:41 pmWe saw this kind of confused incompetence from the Clinton administration for their first six months to a year, but this administration is now in its third year of utter incompetence.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/28/2011 @ 5:50 pmMs. Amanpour should stop eating caramels while she is on the air.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/28/2011 @ 8:20 pmI disagree, but that’s really an amazing possibility to consider.
Did Obama take military action that he calculated to be contrary to congressional wishes? If so, he’s flat breaking his oath. I realize how quaint of a complaint that is.
His policy direction was against taking action for weeks, and then Europe has decided to intervene and Obama makes a very sudden change. I suppose he could have quietly gauged congress’s views, but supposing Obama thought they would decline to act in Libya, why not petition them anyway? Obama gets much of the credit for wanting to help, and little liability. His opponents are blamed for Qaddafi’s actions, too.
I can’t rule Kishnevi’s guess out, since mine is even more off the wall.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/28/2011 @ 8:50 pmDustin–If Congress were to refuse authorization, Obama would still be blamed, on the grounds that he could have done a better job of persuading Congress.
Also bear in mind that when talking about the Middle East, we are dealing with a region where the idea that the approval of a legislative body which is completely independent of the executive is required to go to war or do many other things, is a rather novel concept. So they would take Congressional negative as simply a fig leaf for Obama not wanting to act.
kishnevi (437df2) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:08 pmReading through the threads on the war in Libya seriously makes me wonder of how much value the constitution really is at this point, except as a rallying cry.
This is given that even supposed “conservatives” are prepared to, amongst other crimes against logic, redefine “war” in various hilarious fashions clearly on par with the proverbial debating of what the meaning of “is” is.
econo (880f52) — 3/29/2011 @ 5:03 amPost 17, Amphipolis:
“Just about every president has waged war without a declaration, be it agains the Barbary Pirates…”
From the almighty Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War#Declaration_of_war_and_naval_blockade
“Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.
Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.
In response, “Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was ‘unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'”
Read on for more congressional involvement goodness. If others want to discuss the subsequent examples, that´s good too – some of them involve the president overstepping his bounds (others, however, do not), but that hardly void the consitution.
econo (880f52) — 3/29/2011 @ 5:13 am“They’re also setting a dangerous precedent for the president to go off and bomb whoever he or she wants, whenever, just because they have a plausible moral argument. You say why invade Iraq when Country X is so bad? Well Barack Obama just gave us the Obama Doctrine: rushing into war is okay, as long as you have a plausible urgent moral justification and you don’t use ground troops because then it’s stupid Bush imperialism.”
You forgot the need for Arab League quasi-approval and a UNSC resolution (that one immediately violates, of course).
econo (880f52) — 3/29/2011 @ 5:16 amYes, that’s true. It would have been pretty embarrassing.
I can’t rule it out. For whatever reason, Obama decided not to go ask congress for authorization to use military force, like Bush 43 would have. And while many note they find the mission to be a good idea and more much more concerned with it being done well than fighting the entire effort legally, I find this lawlessness to ruin our government in the long term.
Remember, Obama specifically has noted the constitutional issue I am talking about. He and Biden and practically everyone in his circle has noted that the president cannot do what Obama just did, and even threatened impeachment. It’s worse when the guy breaking the law has loudly cried out exactly what the law is. It forces partisans on Obama’s side even farther along the shameless shill path. Those guys are hardened liars now.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/29/2011 @ 8:53 amAnd let’s remember this before we bash Bush for letting Iran get nuclear weapons. He would have had to ask Nancy Pelosi’s permission. The American people decided to go in an unwise direction, and Bush accepted that years ago.
American liars conspired to tell America Iran didn’t have any nuclear ambitions. I do blame Bush for the intelligence mess he left behind. In his final 2 years he could have gutted those agencies of the worst political shills. He could have left Obama with a much superior intel operation under the command of generals instead of hack partisans. Not that Obama would have done much with it, but I think he needs that.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/29/2011 @ 9:08 amYes, one of them, got the 30 pieces of silver;
narciso (b545d5) — 3/29/2011 @ 9:15 amhttp://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vann_van_diepen_1
It’s a little off thread, but seemingly on point:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/new-rules-label-millions-american-workers-disabled/
narciso (b545d5) — 3/29/2011 @ 9:39 am