Jaw-Dropping Obama Quotes of the Day
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
We get two of them in the same speech. First, this is Obama on the no-fly zone:
[T]he United States of America will not stand idly by in the fact of actions that undermine global peace and security. So I’ve taken this decision with the confidence that action is necessary, and that we will not be acting alone.
Um, Mr. President, you did stand idly by, for weeks and this idiot slaughtered his own people. This “sitskrieg” has been going on for over a month. And look, I’m not saying that there is no argument for staying out of it. I personally think we should have done something long ago. But I respect the other side. But I don’t respect any person pretending we have done anything but sit on our hands up until now, okay? There has to be a little truth, okay?
Ah, but then again, this is the same administration that was recently caught understating how much the deficit would be (that is the rate of increase of our debt), and falsely claimed that we would not be adding to the debt, resulting in this poor nominee to the OMB being put in the difficult position of having to tell us the Obama administration was lying to us:
So that was quote one. And then there was this, from the same transcript:
Muammar Qadhafi clearly lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.
Um, wait a minute, Mr. President… Exactly when did Gaddafi have legitimacy? A dictator is illegitimate every day of his rule.
And mind you, this wasn’t the first time he said, that. He said the same thing, here, about two weeks ago. And someone—I forgot who—noted the incorrectness of that statement, and I let it slide because I figured it was probably just a one-off mistake. But no, apparently this is the Obama doctrine: sometimes a dictator is the legitimate ruler of a nation—a point of view that should never be held by the leader of a free nation.
Seriously, Mr. President… sometimes you frighten me.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
I haven’t seen that much squirming in a long time.
This on its own should be enough to drag Obama’s approval into single digits. Why isn’t it? Is it a matter of people not knowing how dishonest Obama is, or a matter of not caring? I guess I have to add in a lack of faith in an alternative that really will reduce debt.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/18/2011 @ 1:31 pmI like Ms Hittin(her)bottom.
Cute, I’d hire her.
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/18/2011 @ 1:59 pmOur POTUS is an idiot?
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/18/2011 @ 1:59 pm.
.
.
.
.
Revelation huh?
Seriously, Mr. President… sometimes you frighten me
Frighten. But not surprise.
ukuleledave (19a833) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:04 pmShe is a Liberal Hack.
Sad, for an OMB Director.
When did the OMB become partisan?
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:11 pmShe would have represented herself much better by answering the questions when asked instead of trying to defend the administration. Instead she comes across as just another shill. Whatever, I hope she does not get the job because it appears she puts ideology ahead of responsibility.
thomas (9681be) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:17 pmShe’s not that big of a liberal hack, Torq, she can’t bring herself to tell flat out lies with a straight face. Can you imagine being appointed to a position to stand up for Obama??
and that we will not be acting alone
that’s the operative part of his statement
If anything, at this point I think there is more danger of getting sucked in if there is really any desire by anybody to “do something”. At one time I think a few F-22’s would have been tremendous help by themselves at relatively little risk, now, not so much.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:22 pmWhy do my posts double quote?
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:28 pmPresident Obama is deadly serious and laser focused on kicking the deficit can down the road to future generations. WTF!!!!!
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:49 pmand when we become like argentina can the useful idiots just admit peron obama was terrible for us and argentina.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:53 pmi was referring to juan peron i should have said so.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/18/2011 @ 2:54 pmPerhaps Obama never read the thing that contains this: “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
For all I know they don’t have that in the Harvard curriculum.
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 3/18/2011 @ 3:18 pmIt’s easy to be brave when you’re on vacation in Brazil.
Okay, here’s what we are going into. The Libyans have about 120,000 troops. Our forces would be dealing with their air defense systems – mostly equipped with Soviet era surface to air missiles and anti aircraft artillery consisting of 23 mm and 37 mm guns. Their fighters probably will not want to play.
Eighty five percent of all losses are not to fighters or SAMs, they are to the guns. Be afraid of the 23 mm. It’s a twin barrel, high rate of fire cannon. These weapons are aimed optically and probably deployed in civilian neighborhoods were our guys will be reluctant to strike. The 23 puts out a cloud of high explosive rounds through which you do not want to fly. A single hit can bring you down.
SA-2 variants are many. The Chinese and the Egyptians have modified the old Soviet systems improving guidance, fusing and electronic counter-counter measures. New missiles have optical trackers, laser fuses and home on jam. I was shot down by an optical SA-2 over North Vietnam in April 1972.
Our guys have the edge against radar SAMs in the AGM-88 high speed anti radiation missile that is fitted to our F/A-18s and F-16s. This is a 14′ long missile with a big warhead and more range than the Libyan SAMs. They won’t see it coming and it will eat their lunch.
Bottom line: We will lose some aircraft and some people doing this job. It would have been better to go in a month ago when Sarah Palin suggested it.
Arch (24f4f2) — 3/18/2011 @ 3:24 pmBarack Obama has proved Hillary Clinton’s point about him not being ready for the 3 AM phone call. Of course, the Secretary of State has also proved that she wasn’t ready for it, either.
The Dana who remembers the 2008 campaign . . . unfortunately (5a4fb2) — 3/18/2011 @ 3:34 pmHeh… Miss Higginbottom…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/18/2011 @ 3:40 pmContrast President Obama’s puzzling and uneven handling of Libya with the response by UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who even his detractors hail as triumphant for his consistent leadership. Furthermore, I’ve seen reports that British, French and Canadian warplanes are deploying to enforce a no-fly zone, but nothing about American planes. Perhaps they will be based on the U.S. naval warships in the region, but I’m curious whether there will be extensive American involvement.
DRJ (fdd243) — 3/18/2011 @ 3:46 pmBut don’t worry, DRJ. I know someone who will take credit for it, even if little is done. That has been the pattern, right?
Maybe we could have the news reporting on “aerial sorties made or saved” each evening. I’ll be the MSM is up for it.
Simon Jester (ea2bef) — 3/18/2011 @ 3:55 pmit’s very disheartening, all of it
America is like the jewel Emily held in her fingers I think.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 3/18/2011 @ 4:00 pmArch, thanks for the insight, and thanks for flying over North Vietnam. I can only imagine how scary it must have been to be shot down.
Dustin (c16eca) — 3/18/2011 @ 4:06 pmArch
Thank you for your service.
As I commented above (out of my profound knowledge of military aircraft-sarc) when the request was to simply ensure a no-fly zone my understanding is a few F-22’s could have shot down anything in the sky without the Libyans even knowing what was lurking over the line of the horizon. Maybe I’m ignorant, but I thought with that task there would be much less risk of encountering guns. It seems that now any meaningful help will require more than F-22’s taking sniper shots from long distance, but feel free to educate me.
As far as budgetary issues, PowerLine has a great illustration. The budget cuts so far are likened to eating 1/3 of a french fry less than what nornmally comes with a Big Mac meal deal- eat your Big Mac, drink your soda, eat all of your fries until the last one, then eat only 2/3’s of it. That’s what some have called “drastic” cuts.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/18/2011 @ 4:18 pmShe definitely drank the kool-aid – guzzled it really, and some of it rolled down her chin and splashed down onto her reptiles and she said oh my goodness oh my goodness and took off her jacket – really slowly it seemed – and then she said oh dear this blouse is ruined should I take this off too, Senator?
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 4:32 pmI just walked by two greyhounds and noticed one more tactical detail. There’s a full moon (bad). The bad guys can see you coming. It’s not day rules, but we lose a big advantage that our fearless leader squandered.
About Vietnam. Thanks for your concern, but that’s over and for some reason I lived through something that I should not have. I’m worried about Avery, my 17 year old grandson. Are our leaders going to do something stupid that puts him in harm’s way? Probably.
Arch (24f4f2) — 3/18/2011 @ 4:52 pmif the First Failure only frightens you once in awhile, you need to pay attention more often.
as for enforcing the “no-fly” zone, the nearly risk free option would have been to fly B-2 missions every night and SDB all CnC sites, weapons dumps, fuel farms and aircraft storage sites, using AWACS, J-STARS and satellite data for target acquisition.
after all, that’s why invented all those things, so we could do stuff like that to a$$holes that needed bad 5hit to happen to them. hell, i’d have targeted his residences too, just to liven up his nights.
but not Ear Leader: oh no, he’s much to smart for anything that simple, useless mouth breathing paint chip eating moron that he is. to everyone of you that voted for him, including everyone who didn’t vote for Sarah and the old fart, I TOLD YOU SO!
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/18/2011 @ 4:55 pmObama has this bizarre view that if he says something, its instantly true. No matter how much it contradicts basic, objective reality. No matter how much it contradicts his own previous statements; his own actions. Once he says something, in his mind reality is instantly altered to conform.
Now obviously, any politician has the ability to utter fatuous crap and expect to get away with it. But no one has this fantasyland quality of false exposition like Obama.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/18/2011 @ 4:57 pmAmerica’s impending bankruptcy and ruin caused by bumble’s wanton and whorish spendings does more to undermine global peace and security than the Libyan ponce ever dreamed of doing.
That’s just the troof of it.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 5:05 pm“A dictator is illegitimate every day of his rule.”
Not necessarily. “Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.” This is true even of dictators – the difference being that the consent is seized rather than voluntarily given.
Not all regimes are established through formal democratic means.
It is not all that unusual for a regime to have power, with the consent of the majority of the people, without any formal process having taken place. Or the formal process may have been corrupted.
Some dictators were national versions of the old-style city political boss. They intimidated or suppressed political opposition, used state power to skew elections, and stole votes. Yet they could still have considerable, even majority popular support, as some of the bosses did.
There are also dictators who have taken power because of a perceived emergency – when the previous regime was obviously corrupt or incapable or conspiring to subvert the constitution. Such dictators often have wide support initially, and some of them even step down when the emergency is resolved. Others hold on to power, again sometimes with wide support.
On the other hand, there are dictators who masquerade as elected leaders, such as Kim Jong-il of North Korea. Distinguishing these from political-boss types or even non-dictators is not automatic: there is no bright line.
Rich Rostrom (b93deb) — 3/18/2011 @ 5:13 pmI won’t link because of the source, but this is revealing,
“In suggesting a gap between Obama’s insistence that the US isn’t seeking regime change and David Cameron’s insistence that the Libyan ruler must go.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor emails that it’s a fine line — but a real one:
This is very easily explained.
We still believe that Qaddafi has lost his legitimacy to lead and must go. However the goal of this resolution is not regime change. Rather it authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing.
Those two things aren’t contradictory.
Dana (9f3823) — 3/18/2011 @ 5:16 pmI though sending the military to remove evil dictators who were killing their citizens was wrong?
What is the difference between removing Saddam or
or Qadhafi?
Obama spent years critizing President Bush for exactly what he is supporting now.
Obama is either corrupt or insane.
highpockets (20379d) — 3/18/2011 @ 5:20 pmhere is something I read on the internet and using my cutting and pasting powers I will endeavor to afford you guys the same opportunity ok here we go
This would explain why she came across as being ignorant and unable to marshal facts and logic in support of her contentions.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 5:21 pmNo, pikachu, ignorant is you don’t know any better, for lack of knowledge, this is something different,
narciso (a3a9aa) — 3/18/2011 @ 5:39 pmhaving such a total disconnect with reality, that
they shouldn’t serve Whoppers, or anything more complicated.
“I though sending the military to remove evil dictators who were killing their citizens was wrong?”
That depends on whether or not quasi-human left wing scum (like the Great Black Dope) think they can secure political advantage by doing so.
Dave Surls (9772d6) — 3/18/2011 @ 6:02 pmMeanwhile, just up the street from Libya and Yemen. …
The blogger is an Egyptian woman, possibly of Islamist tendencies. And here is her most recent post on Libya. and what she has to say about US-European intervention
If you think about it the NATO and the States are thinking twice before engaging in any military action considering the costs and also the fact that the Arab people and Libyan people in particular will not welcome any Western military intervention especially now , thus the best option is to let the Arabs and Libyans solve it themselves.
(Her preferred option seems to be intervention by the Egyptian army.)
kishnevi (a6ffde) — 3/18/2011 @ 6:03 pmRich
> This is true even of dictators – the difference being that the consent is seized rather than voluntarily given.
Um, that’s not what we ordinarily consider to be “consent.”
> Not all regimes are established through formal democratic means.
A democracy/republic is the only legitimate form of government. I am not saying it has to be exactly like ours. For instance, England is very far from a true democracy. But I won’t declare it illegitimate.
But every dictatorship is illegitimate.
> It is not all that unusual for a regime to have power, with the consent of the majority of the people, without any formal process having taken place. Or the formal process may have been corrupted.
So… they have the consent of the people but they can’t win elections. Huh?
If you ask and they still say no and so therefore you force it, its not consent. that applies both in and out of the bedroom.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/18/2011 @ 6:13 pmBy your logic, a rapist “seizes” consent from his victim, so rape is just another form of consensual sex.
Some chump (e84e27) — 3/18/2011 @ 6:25 pm“What is the difference between removing Saddam or
or Qadhafi?”
“Obama spent years critizing President Bush for exactly what he is supporting now.”
The difference is that Obambi thought he could parlay undercutting Bush into political gain for himself…and, he thought right, as it turned out.
He didn’t give a crap what happened to the Iraqis then, and he doesn’t give a crap what happens to the Libyans now.
It’s all about what helps Obambi, and people like Obambi, get into power…and then stay in power.
He’s thinking that using military force against the Libyans might improve his chances for reelection, so him and his boys are mulling it over.
And, it’s the same deal for ALL leftoid degenerates.
Dave Surls (9772d6) — 3/18/2011 @ 6:43 pmRich Rostrom is a funny guy! Can’t wait to see what kind of silliness he comes up with on Sockpuppet Friday.
Icy Texan (cec02e) — 3/18/2011 @ 7:04 pmAs for our bumbler-in-chief, when he says, “Muammar Qadhafi clearly lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead,” the only mistake he’s making is inserting QVC Daffy’s name in place of his own.
Icy Texan (cec02e) — 3/18/2011 @ 7:16 pmQaddafi is no friend of the US but neither are his opponents.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/18/2011 @ 8:27 pmthe Japanese are friends of the US we really really should be helping them more… how we can help/are helping/will help should be a way way way huger story than about the radiations cause radiations are really quite common and cheap but allies like Japan only come along once in a generation at most and that’s only if you’re living right
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 8:31 pmYou guys are confused – Rich was not talking about consent consent.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/18/2011 @ 8:52 pmWe are deep in debt happyfeet.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/18/2011 @ 8:54 pmoh dear God in the you can’t make it up department comes this gaudy bauble from the propaganda whores at National Soros radio: bumble’s new-found belligerence towards daffy?
It’s part and parcel with his anti-bullying campaign.
for reals
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 9:14 pmhappy
i saw a tweet, i think it was, when obama was doing the anti-bullying thing. the joke was, “someone tell obama that ghaddafi is a bully.”
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/18/2011 @ 9:26 pmso so surreal it’s the pee wee herman presidency
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 9:28 pmDid Keith Ellison burst into tears when Moabama said that crap?
And BTW how can Ellison an islamic supremacist be supportive of gay rights?
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/18/2011 @ 9:32 pmThe left has objectively shown itstrue colors for a long time now.
It only has one true purpose: Remake the United States into some kind of gulag where intelligence, worth and ambition is relegated to the dustbin.
The great leftist Vonnegut wrote the story of what they want, unintentionally, I suspect, yet the left wants a nation of complacent Harrison Bergerons so that its ideas can finally be vindicated. Regardless of the fact they have never worked before.
The left is the nothing more than the child on the playground who said “I told you so,” rather than the child who said “Look what I can do.”
Ag80 (efea1d) — 3/18/2011 @ 9:33 pmWhat f**king good would that do? All those people want to do with bullies is talk to them. Try and understand them. Find a way to be friends with them.
Just as with our enemies, bullies only understand a good punch to the nose.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/18/2011 @ 9:52 pmWell said Scott.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/18/2011 @ 10:04 pmheather is just so ridiculously naughty looking
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 10:14 pmit’s a kooky to the point of almost-contrived contrast, the juxtaposition of our ms. higginbottom with the dweeby guys sitting behind Mr. Sessions this has a very SNL feel to it
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/18/2011 @ 10:20 pmMs. Higginbottam could make a good naughty librarian, but that would be wrong of me to say.
daleyrocks (ae76ce) — 3/18/2011 @ 10:31 pm“…(we) will not stand idly by…”
Can’t be idling when Teh Won is running his mouth!
AD-RtR/OS! (40ffae) — 3/18/2011 @ 10:35 pmObama has this bizarre view that if he says something, its instantly true. No matter how much it contradicts basic, objective reality. No matter how much it contradicts his own previous statements; his own actions. Once he says something, in his mind reality is instantly altered to conform.
I don’t think so. I suspect that he’s so arrogant, and so contemptuous of the American public, that he expects us all to believe what he says, just because He said it. That’s a common trait among sociopaths.
The hell of it is, he was right about 53% of us.
I never thought I’d say this, but the words “President Biden” are sounding better and better to me all the time.
Murgatroyd (fd5fcd) — 3/19/2011 @ 12:06 am_________________________________________
the Obama doctrine: sometimes a dictator is the legitimate ruler of a nation—a point of view that should never be held by the leader of a free nation.
The foolishness and idiocy of the current president had sort of a grand unveiling back in June 2009. That’s when the guy came out and gave hugs and kisses to Hondura’s former leader, ultra-liberal Manuel Zelayo. Never mind how appropriate it was for such a person to be removed from office based on the Honduran constitution. No, that wasn’t good enough. That didn’t pass the smell test of President “Goddamn America” Obama.
Mark (411533) — 3/19/2011 @ 6:34 amRead the post [yet to read the thread (don’t hate)].
1) Stoked, truly … that there exists the understanding … of agreeing to disagree [on military action in Libya (me: no fookin way)]. And I kin see da humor (from my front door) uh bein in the same column as Hugo [the world is a funny place (well usta be anyway … before the Global Islamic Revolution [Grrrrr for short])].
But let me bottom line part of the post for y’all … the word:
Illegitimate.
Used by Chucklehead/Commandant Sitzpinkler (and one a’his leel libturd lapdogs *ssbamador Rice).
KuhDaffy Duck’s illegitimate (sez Khalid Sheikh Obama), so … let’s bomb him. Ya know, just like last week … when we called the Israeli’s … and the houses they live in … illegitimate (though I deen’t have to bomb ’em … one uh my buddies in the caliphate crawled through one of the windows, of one of those houses. And slaughtered the occupants (mad props me … Khalid Sheikh Obama!).
Mark my words … yellow cloth stars will be next. Obama is a piece of filth … lying bald faced, from the Pwezziduncial podium: bad Scotland (al Megrahi). When he personally worked for his release (Obama still had KuhDaffy’s wang in his mouth at the time).
And regards American pilots flying sorties over Libya?
Lemme tellya, from my perch is only subterfuge. Is only a means … with which to attempt insuring Iran’s ascendancy … to destroyer of worlds.
This is not a good thing. A mistake beyond measure. And I firmly believe, the actual beginning of WWIII (cept we’ll be on the wrong fookin side!)
Elmo (d82a84) — 3/19/2011 @ 6:36 amBoy, she hates hearing the truth. And she hates having to respond to it truthfully.
She’s speaking so quickly that she can barely be understood, “Get me out of here, My God Obama!”
Anonyma (e5eb3e) — 3/19/2011 @ 8:12 amA conservative makes the anti-intervention argument.
Angeleno (4e9907) — 3/19/2011 @ 8:53 amWow angeleno for once i agree with you.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/19/2011 @ 8:56 am“Gaddafi son claims he funded Sarkozy Camapaign:”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/sarkozy-election-campaign-libya-claim
Maybe this assertion by Gaddafi’s son was a warning shot to Obama. The Libyans had the means, the connections and the motives to shower money on Obama’s 2008 campaign.
This might also explain Hillary’s aggressive advocacy for US involvement–puts the squeeze to Obama.
Factors to consider:
1) Obama’s handling of Lockerbie Bomber release was deceptive and of course a favor to Gaddafi.
2)Many of Obama’s Chicago pals are connected financially and other ways with Gaddafi. Farrakhan took $5 million at least. Rev Wright also a strong Gaddafi supporter.
3) Obama’s 2008 Campaign had over $200 million in undeclared campaign donations. Credible reports in 2008 linked Middle East money to Obama.
LaFong (6c7b85) — 3/19/2011 @ 9:00 amB-but obama cares i mean the leftys insist obama cares hey when the economy collapses the lefties will be starving to death along with the rest of us.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/19/2011 @ 9:01 ammore Higgenbottom…
Great shoulder-pads.
AD-RtR/OS! (442927) — 3/19/2011 @ 9:32 amProbably really come in handy when her head flops from Right to Left as she becomes completely discombobulated.
Libya threatens to be a temporary but still significant distraction from Japanese suffering and from America’s incompetent bungling of finances and economy more than anything else.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/19/2011 @ 9:41 am#58
Perhaps you meant to say that you agree with Luttwak. I linked to him, but haven’t indicated that I agree with his views.
Angeleno (4e9907) — 3/19/2011 @ 9:48 amExactly.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/19/2011 @ 9:48 amObama 2007:
Bugg (9e308e) — 3/19/2011 @ 9:56 am“When asked, then-Senator Obama said that he would not use signing statements to subvert the intent of congressional laws – a device used by President Bush to challenge hundreds of points of law. Nor would he challenge congressional limits on the deployment of US forces abroad.
“As president, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law,” he said in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with The Boston Globe, circulated by the transition team.
As a US senator, he introduced a resolution (S.J. Res. 23) that stated that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
I thought Sarah Palin could have done a better job defending Obama… and I also thought Sen. Sessions looked like he wanted her to start talking dirty.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/19/2011 @ 10:02 amI know I did.
Wait.
Was that my outside voice again?
my inner male knuckle-dragging self thinks that woman is incredibly sexy.
stormin1961 (0dd6f1) — 3/19/2011 @ 10:10 amDrudge says Europe is puzzled by the US stance on Libya…
That presumes we have a stance and isn’t this the kind of US (non)action that their citizens have protested to get?
Jack Wagon (4577da) — 3/19/2011 @ 10:23 amI’m sure Libya is puzzled by bumble’s assurance that we’re only gonna do our little thing for a few days not weeks and weeks.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/19/2011 @ 10:27 amItem in cruddy government toolbox: if the peons get restless, start foreign adventure to distract them and get patriotic juices flowing.
We have seen it a jillion times. We’re not so accustomed to seeing our own gov. do it.
øbama was very concerned to get approval from the international community, not interested in Congressional approval. He didn’t check with us, either, what’s new.
This is a piece of idiocy. ø thinks he can control it.
jodetoad (7720fb) — 3/19/2011 @ 11:09 amIt’s a wide stance… the Craig doctrine of airport restrooms applied via smart power to our international affairs.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/19/2011 @ 11:10 amRich
> Not all regimes are established through formal democratic means.
> A democracy/republic is the only legitimate form of government.
Whoo! Even Jefferson never made that claim.
Does that mean Saudi Arabia is not a legitimate government? Should the U.S. say so publicly? What about China?
Was Mubarak legitimate? He was elected and re-elected. The elections were rigged? Prove it. Is the new regime “legitimate”? They weren’t elected at all.
>England is very far from a true democracy
“Very far”?
> But I won’t declare it illegitimate.
Very generous of you. Before 1911, when the House of Lords still had a theoretical power to veto legislation, was the British government “illegitimate”? Should the U.S. have recognized the never-elected Tsar of Russia as “legitimate”?
>> It is not all that unusual for a regime to have power,
>> with the consent of the majority of the people, without
>> any formal process having taken place. Or the formal
>> process may have been corrupted.
> So… they have the consent of the people but they can’t win
> elections. Huh?
Or they don’t bother. Marshal Pilsudski was de facto dictator of Poland from 1925 to his death. He had taken power in a coup d’etat with the support of several different opposition parties (including the Communists!). He appointed a crony as President, but the real power was in his hands and he ruled by decree. There was only limited opposition and the great majority of Poles approved.
Is a “democratic government” legitimate if the ruler ges 90%, but only 20% of the voters turned out? If the ruler was elected by plurality? If the ruler is unopposed? If a few years later, the ruler omits what is practically a meaningless ritual?
I’ve been Secretary-Treasurer and de facto CEO of my 6-unit co-op building corporation for over 10 years. We haven’t had a formal shareholders’ meeting in at least four years, so my tenure is “illegitimate”. But I can’t get the other residents to bother with a meeting. They just let me run things, and have no particular complaints AFAIK (and I think I would know).
The traditional legal doctrine is “Silence gives consent.” People are very often silent on government. They simply don’t care enough to make a fuss or cast a vote. That is why a government in power may be presumed legitimate even if it does not have a formal democratic mandate.
When an apparent majority of the people actively resist the authority of the government, then the government is clearly illegitimate – as with Qaddaffi today. But if not, it is presumptuous and ill-advised for the U.S. to be passing judgment on another government’s legitimacy.
(That didn’t stop Obama, in the case of Honduras.)
Rich Rostrom (b93deb) — 3/19/2011 @ 11:57 amDrudge is pretty excited that we’re shooting missiles at some goat-herding wizzle-wazzles. I’ll get excited if we target daffy personally I guess but we coulda chucked missiles at these monkey-dunks weeks and weeks ago and it’s hard to get excited about justice! after daffy already slaughtered so many people. Maybe if it was in 3D.
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/19/2011 @ 12:07 pmRich
> Does that mean Saudi Arabia is not a legitimate government?
Yes. I am not saying we should invade, but they have no right to rule those people.
> Was Mubarak legitimate? He was elected and re-elected. The elections were rigged? Prove it.
He was the only person allowed to run for president. Duh.
> Is the new regime “legitimate”? They weren’t elected at all.
Very brief periods of less than perfect democracy are necessary in transitioning to true democracy. It happened in America, too.
> Or they don’t bother.
Lol, they are so popular they don’t bother with elections!
> There was only limited opposition and the great majority of Poles approved.
How do you know without, say, elections? Hell, I don’t even think they had opinion polling back then—not that I consider that to be a substitute.
> Is a “democratic government” legitimate if…
We can talk hypoethicals until we are blue in the face, but if the ruler of a nation is not standing for a real competitive and free election, you are a dictator and illigitimate.
> The traditional legal doctrine is “Silence gives consent.”
Not in most contexts if you are pointing a gun at their heads, which these dictators do.
Really, i find it sad to see an apparent american trying so hard to justify tyranny.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/19/2011 @ 12:10 pmVote in support of Gov. Walker.. http://www.journaltimes.com/polls/html_e7df0506-44fc-11e0-b687-001cc4c002e0.html#pd_a_4647768%23pd_a_4647768_
vote like a Dem, early and often..
Heidi (90c3ef) — 3/20/2011 @ 7:08 amThe fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Barack Obama – 2006
Greg (30d590) — 3/20/2011 @ 10:46 amI’ve quoted you and linked to you here.
Consul-At-Arms (dcde1b) — 3/26/2011 @ 6:11 pm