See no Benghazi, Hear no Benghazi, Report no Benghazi !!

Bring Them Home

Here's the print that our Narcissist In Chief is peddling on his campaign site.

I'm not the first person to notice the similarities to another image that's been in the media lately. Here are the hand prints of our Libyan embassy staff.
Way to go with that "Smart Diplomacy", guys. 

What in the hell made anyone think Bill Clinton's wife would be any better at representing us and keeping a lid on this mess than, say, Sarah Palin's husband??  Four years working from a safe Congressional seat in upstate New York???  Sitting through HillaryCare meetings?  Making up fantasies about running across Serbian airfields under fire (along with the comedian Sinbad and Chelsea and some random singers?)

Don't bother praying for the troops. 
Don't go to the hassle of putting a yellow ribbon sticker on your car. 
Discontinue your practice of going nuts every time an army reserve unit unrolls a giant USA flag before a NFL or MLB game. 

If you really want to support the troops, vote Libertarian.
We'll get their feet back underneath their Mamas' tables. 
We are the only party that wants to bring the troops home NOW. 

We have no business over there.  We're making things worse.  If you had to get past Chinese checkpoints and barracks to get home from work, you might be bombing attacking some embassies yourself. 

FOR....WAR....d

A Dead Statesman - Rudyard Kipling

A Dead Statesman


I could not dig; I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?

 - Rudyard Kipling

Ron Paul, on "An Administration Gone Rogue"

Guess who scored a ticket to Ron Paul's speech at the Will Rogers Memorial Center in Cowtown on the 11th???
That should be good. 

BTW, Ron Paul has hired relatives as staffers, he's added non-germane earmarks to bills, somebody wrote some incredibly disturbing racist stuff in his late 80's-early 90's newsletters, and I think he once lost his patience with an incompetent nurse.  He once farted.  He has delivered more than 4,000 babies, most of whom now contribute to Global Warming.  There are rumors that in the 7th grade, Ron Paul wrote a negative book report about To Kill A Mockingbird. 
(I'm going to start getting all the negatives out of the way early so my Facebook and website trolls don't have to work so hard.) 

Here's Dr. Paul's latest broadside against Those Who Program The Teleprompter.  It's called "An Administration Gone Rogue". 

Have certain parts of the Constitution become irrelevant, as a former Republican leader once told me at a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing? At the time, I was told that demanding a Congressional declaration of war before invading Iraq, as Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires, was unnecessary and anachronistic. Congress and the president then proceeded without a Constitutional declaration and the disastrous Iraq invasion was the result.

Last week, Obama administration officials made it clear that even the fig leaf of Congressional participation provided by the 2003 "authorization" to use force in Iraq was to be ignored as well. In a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated clearly and repeatedly that the administration felt it was legally justified to use military force against Syria solely with "international permission". Such "international permission" could come by way of the United Nations, NATO, or some other international body. Secretary Panetta then told Senator Sessions that depending on the situation, the administration would consider informing Congress of its decision and might even seek authorization after the fact.

While Senator Sessions expressed surprise at the casual audacity of Panetta in making this statement, in reality his was just a bluntly stated explanation of what has been, de facto, the case for many years.

If we had elected my Libertarian buddy John Jay Myers to Pete Sessions' seat in Congress, John Jay would've done more than merely "express surprise.  John Jay would've jumped the railing and gotten into Leon Panetta's fat, war-profiteer face.  Oh well. 

When President Obama committed the US military to a pre-emptive war against Libya last year, for example, Congress was kept completely out of the process. Likewise, military action in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and so on, proceed without a Congressional declaration. In fact, we haven't had a proper, constitutional declaration of war since 1942, yet the US military has been engaged in Korea, Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, and Libya with only UN resolutions as the authority. Congress's only role has been authorizing funds, which it always does without question, because one must "support the troops".

Of course we should reserve our harshest criticism for Congress rather than the Administration. If the people's branch of government abrogates its Constitutional authority to the Executive branch, who is to blame? Who is to blame that Congress as a body will not stand up and demand that the president treat the Constitution as more than an anachronistic piece of paper, or merely a set of aspirations and guidelines? The Constitution is the law of the land and for Congress to allow it to be flouted speaks as badly about Congress as it does about a president who seeks to do the flouting.

Just last week the administration announced that it would begin providing material support to the rebels who seek to overthrow the Syrian government. Was Congress involved in this decision to take sides in what may develop into a full-fledged civil war? And what of reports that US special forces may already be operating inside Syria? Still, Congress sits silently as its authority is undermined. Does anybody really wonder why approval numbers for Congress are so low?

Many of my colleagues who stood by as then-President Bush used the military as a kind of king's army are now calling for Congress to act against this president for openly admitting that is his intent. I agree it is time for Congressional action in response to these attacks on our Constitution, but the solution is simple and Constitutional. The solution is simply voting to withhold funds, since Congress has the power of the purse. No money for undeclared wars!

The picture of Barack Obama as a jet fighter came from SodaHead, in an essay entitled "Hey, Obama, What do you say?  How many kids did you kill today?" 

Don Surber is despicable. Or maybe just misinformed.

Don Surber, whose writing I ordinarily enjoy, has been pushed over the edge.  It seems that Ron Paul's opposition to Hillary Clinton's and Dick Cheney's and Condi Rice's and George Schultz's and Henry Kissinger's foreign policy screw-ups have driven him over the edge. 

He's got a piece on his site entitled "Ron Paul Is Despicable".  Here's Mr. Surber: 

His (Ron Paul's) weird take on the Constitution is Jacksonian and I do not mean that in a complimentary manner. Republican Congressman Ron Paul envisions a world in which the USA is neutered as she was in the 1990s. He talks as if the last 65 years without a major European war are not worth the sacrifices our nation has made over the years in standing up to communism and in standing up for democracy in Europe and elsewhere.

Ok, lets look at the easy stuff first.  There hasn't been a major European war, only a minor one in Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Serbia.   But let's broaden our horizon to include continents that don't include so many white folks.  What about Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, El Salvador, and the financial aid and training we've given to dozens of dictators? 

Never mind.  Those folks ain't white, and they talk funny. 

There are places in the world where nothing is more terrifying than the U.S. coming over to "stand up for democracy". 

Back to Mr. Surber:

But even if I agreed with him, I would think of Ron Paul as a despicable human being because of this, which he said to supporters, according to CBS: “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”

Well, if memory serves, we went into Iraq claiming that they had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.  We never found any.  The flimsy evidence upon which we based our invasion was weak and flawed.  I repeat....WMD's were the only reason we had to invade Iraq at the time.  We went in.  We found nothing.  We were looking for anything, any excuse whatsoever, to go invade the place.  We were "gleeful" to have that excuse, as no others had presented themselves.  We're still there.  We now have the largest fort in the world over there, and it is disguised as an embassy.  We'll be there forever.  Mission accomplished.
And there was very little Al-Qaeda presence there until we showed up and started kicking over anthills. 

He is lucky we outlawed dueling, because I am pretty sure that given the opportunity, Dick Cheney would indeed issue such a challenge.

And if Dick Cheney's dueling skills are anything like his dove hunting skills, Ron Paul has nothing to fear.  Cheney's no better at hitting targets than he was at finding WMD's.   
 

UPDATE: Ron Paul need not worry about repercussions. No one in the Bush administration takes him serious. The London Daily Mail reported that Ari Fleisher, Bush’s spokesman during 9/11, tweeted, “The man is nuts.”

Ron Paul has peddled this bullcrap for years. Recall this exchange during the 2008 presidential debate season:

Ron Paul: “They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.”

Rudy Giuliani: “That’s an extraordinary statement of someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.”

Ron Paul is a perennial presidential candidate whose first bid was in 1988. He has figured out how to make a buck or two off paranoid rubes who buy this swill. It is a cottage industry that others such as Lyndon LaRouche work quite well.

I defend his right to lie about honorable men because I trust that most people have the wisdom to understand how ignorant he is.

The day after this debate, Ron Paul's campaign took in one million dollars. 
Until Ron Paul dropped out of the race, he had the honor of receiving the most contributions from active military personnel. 

Here's something from the comments beneath Surber's article:

I wish Ron Paul was crazy. I wish Iraq really did have WMD’s. I wish the Federal Reserve really did have the knowledge and ability to maintain stable prices and full employment. I wish that our welfare programs were solvent and sustainable. I wish the sacrifices made by our troops were really necessary. I wish the Patriot Act was patriotic. I wish we didn’t have inflation and unemployment was only at 9%. I wish we could win the war on drugs. I wish the terrorists really did hate us for our freedom. I wish we were defending our national interests in Afghanistan. I wish our big banks really were too big to fail.

But I can’t believe these lies anymore, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who is brave enough to tell the truth. Open your eyes.

The State Department wasn't the only one playing Footsie with Gaddafi

Muammar Kaddafi was "Dictator Du Jour" on this site a few days ago.  It's a new program I've started to honor the murderous dictators that our State Department blesses with lots of free stuff - training, military hardware, etc. 

(Note: I'm no longer even trying to spell this guy's name consistently from link to link.)

It gets better and better.  This is from The Business Insider:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised to help former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi obtain U.S. military hardware, as one of the United States' partners in the war on terror," according to a U.S. diplomatic cable released Wednesday by anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

If the Nobel Peace Prize committee wants to atone for giving the prize to The Teleprompter Jesus, they oughta give it to Julian Assange, the founder and publisher of Wikileaks. 

The meeting, which took place just over a year ago on Aug. 14, 2009, included other influential Americans, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Susan Collins (R-SC) and Senate Armed Services Committee staffer Richard Fontaine, the document explains.

McCain opened the meeting by characterizing Libya's relationship with the U.S. as "excellent," to which Liebermann added: "We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qadhafi."

"Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies sometimes make better friends," the cable continues. "The Senators recognized Libya's cooperation on counterterrorism and conveyed that it was in the interest of both countries to make the relationship stronger."

Part and parcel to that relationship: military hardware, including helicopters and non-lethal weaponry, meant to ensure the security of Tripoli. In exchange for this and assisting the nation in rehabilitating its image with other lawmakers, Gaddafi pledged to send Libya's highly enriched uranium supplies to Russia for proper disposal.

Note that the article doesn't say "in exchange for this, Gaddafi gave us money".  It just says that "in exchange for this, Gaddafi pledged"....to do something or other. 

The cable does not mention anything about the senators pressing Gaddafi for democratic reforms. 

Muammar al-Qaddafi - Our Dictator Du Jour (we were for him before we were against him)

Ron Paul has a reputation amongst The Statists as being totally naive on foreign policy. 

This means he is always right. 

Not just kinda right, but gloriously validated and vindicated.   You don't earn a bad reputation in Big Government circles by being wrong. 

Here's a little dustup that Paul had with our Secretary Of State, also known as She Whose Name Is Not Spoken:

“A lot of people in this country have come to the conclusion that our policy overhaul has been inconsistent; that sometimes we support the bad guys and the bad guys become our enemies,” Paul told Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Rep. Paul pointed to America’s support for Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, its collaboration with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s, and its propping up the Shah in Iran for decades before that.

“But we keep supporting Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, all these dictators, and yet we pretend that as soon as, well, it looks like the dictator might fall, we're all for democracy and we're for freedom and we're against these dictators,” he said.

To which The Hildabeast responded:

“Congressman, you make a very passionate argument, and my response is that, you know, the United States, over the course of its entire diplomatic history, has had to make some very difficult decisions,” she said.

“We try to balance what we believe to be in our interests. Sometimes, and I would argue most times, we get it right. Sometimes we don't,” America’s top diplomat conceded.

You can go here for a partial list of dictators that we've supported, and that most sane and sober people would examine and say "Dang, Hillary.  You sure got that one wrong.  What possessed you folks to give that dictator a bunch of money?"  

So here's today's update:  Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi is now on the run.  Rebels have almost taken Tripoli, and our State Department will soon be able to claim that our military involvement in Libya was justified.  But what about this, from 2009 ??

The State Department has designated $400,000 in international aid funds for two foundations run by the children of Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, a move that two Republican members of Congress today called a misuse of taxpayer funds that should be immediately cut off by President Obama.

The Congress members’ complaints on Thursday came just a day after Kaddafi delivered a bizarre speech to the United Nations in which he suggested the Israelis may have been behind the Kennedy assassination and the swine-flu virus was cooked up in a corporate lab. It also comes amid mounting international criticism of Kaddafi’s regime after it provided a hero’s welcome to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 that killed 270 people.

Ironically, one of the groups designated for $200,000 in State Department funds is the Kaddafi Development Foundation, headed by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the Libyan leader’s son who personally arranged for Megrahi’s flight back to Tripoli last month after the convicted terrorist was released on “humanitarian” grounds from a Scottish jail. Another $200,000—part of $2.5 million in State Department economic-support funds for Libya—is slated to go to an organization headed by Kaddafi’s daughter Aisha, to promote “women’s economic opportunities.”

“This waste of taxpayer dollars is particularly outrageous following the hero’s welcome given to the Lockerbie bomber,” said Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Relations Committee. Ros-Lehtinen wrote Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to cut off the entire $2.5 million designation for Libya, noting that it was provided by Congress in order to “promote democracy and human rights” in Libya. “How could this assistance effectively promote democracy when entrusted to the dictator’s family?” she asked.

Yeah.  Good question.  I think that funding got blocked, but I don't have time this morning to research it properly.  But how about this later attempt to give Qaddafi some money?  Not just some money but an increase in his allowance?  This was going on in March of this year !!!!

While President Obama calls Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi a threat to his own people, just one month before attacking Libya the president asked Congress to increase U.S. aid for Qaddafi's military to $1.7 million.

According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism.

If this seems contradictory, welcome to the world of U.S. foreign aid, where billions of tax dollars go to people we don't like and nations some say don't need the help. The latest unrest has drawn renewed scrutiny to these policies. 

Hell, by the way they keep trying to throw money at him, you would think that Qaddafi worked for SEIU or ACORN or maybe the Wisconsin Teachers' Union.  If time permitted, I'd check to see if he got any stimulus funds. 

If you have time and don't mind getting depressed, you can go here and see that, through various aid organizations, we've given Libya $176 million since Qaddafi took over as dictator. 

Good job, Hillary. 

*********************

I think my next Dictator Du Jour will be Spain's Francisco Franco or Cambodia's Pol Pot.  We supported both of them until we were against them.  Or I can take nominations for other dicatators from you folks.  The floor is open, and there are plenty of candidates. 

The pic of our man in Libya came from here.  The Aid Trap picture came from here, and that entire article should be tattooed on Hillary's thighs. 

Barack Obama and Libya and Superman and The Justice League and The Beatles

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. 

One of those laws states that Congress alone has the power to declare war.  If there's an emergency, the President can use the troops and planes and boats and bombs and nukes all he wants, but he has to get Congressional approval for anything lasting longer than 60 days. 

We've been bombing the crap out of Libya for longer than 60 days.  If this had been done by anyone but a Nobel Peace Prize-winning, warm and fuzzy, anti-militaristic Democrat, the calls for impeachment would be on the front page of every newspaper.   

John Boehner, under some pressure from people who wonder why we're getting involved in war number 4 or 5, depending on how you count, finally sent The Teleprompter Jesus a letter demanding to know why we were still involved without Congressional approval.  Here's what he got back:

The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was conducted under the command of the U.S. Africa Command. By April 4, however, the United States had transferred responsibility for the military operations in Libya to NATO and the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.

Where to begin, where to begin.....

Let's start with this:  We are NATO.  Just like we were with The Allies in the war against The Axis.  Just like Superman is a member of the Justice League.  If the Justice League fights together as a team, Superman is still fighting.  Having Aquaman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Captain Marvel by his side doesn't negate the fact that he's still fighting. 

Whenever Allen Patterson pounds something really stupid into the internet, he can't blame it on The Whited Sepulchre when he sobers up.  In the words of the Beatles....

"I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together."

The United States is 75% of NATO.  It wouldn't exist without us.   

Moving on, let's get to the business about providing "non-kinetic" support.  If Mexico were to invade Texas, and Cuba was supplying the Mexican navy with "non-kinetic" support, we would sink the Cuban supply ships that were providing Mexico with "non-kinetic" support.  We wouldn't think twice about it.

If we shot down a Mexican Air Force plane over San Antonio, and Cubans were aiding the Mexicans in search and rescue, we would try to stop the Cubans.  We would consider them as hostile combatants. 

Okay, about that "no-fly zone"....  If Mexico declared Texas to be a "no-fly zone", and Cuba helped "suppress and destroy" our air defenses, we would see it as an act of war on the part of Cuba, not the incident result of a non-kinetic military action. 

Regarding Obama's last point about "unmanned aerial vehicles"....  If you're getting bombs dropped on your head, I don't think you care if it's being done by the pilot in the plane, or an Air Force kid with a joystick at a base somewhere in Wisconsin.  The result is the same.  We're dropping bombs on Libya. 

Barack Obama needs to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Libya, because we're at war with Libya. 

Congress needs to man up and demand it.  Then vote it up or down.  That's how it is supposed to work. 

Speaking of  "I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together", here are The Beatles doing "I Am The Walrus". 

Why Osama bin Laden won

As usual, Radley Balko has the best perspective on the events of the last couple of days:

In The Looming Tower, the Pulitzer-winning history of al-Qaeda and the road to 9/11, author Lawrence Wright lays out how Osama bin Laden’s motivation for the attacks that he planned in the 1990s, and then the September 11 attacks, was to draw the U.S. and the West into a prolonged war—an actual war in Afghanistan, and a broader global war with Islam.

Osama got both. And we gave him a prolonged war in Iraq to boot. By the end of Obama’s first term, we’ll probably top 6,000 dead U.S. troops in those two wars, along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. The cost for both wars is also now well over $1 trillion.

We have also fundamentally altered who we are. A partial, off-the-top-of-my-head list of how we’ve changed since September 11 . . .

• We’ve sent terrorist suspects to “black sites” to be detained without trial and tortured.
• We’ve turned terrorist suspects over to other regimes, knowing that they’d be tortured.
• In those cases when our government later learned it got the wrong guy, federal officials not only refused to apologize or compensate him, they went to court to argue he should be barred from using our courts to seek justice, and that the details of his abduction, torture, and detainment should be kept secret.
• We’ve abducted and imprisoned dozens, perhaps hundreds of men in Guantanamo who turned out to have been innocent. Again, the government felt no obligation to do right by them.
• The government launched a multimillion dollar ad campaign implying that people who smoke marijuana are complicit in the murder of nearly 3,000 of their fellow citizens.
• The government illegally spied and eavesdropped on thousands of American citizens.
• Presidents from both of the two major political parties have claimed the power to detain suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely without trial, based solely on the president’s designation of them as an “enemy combatant,” essentially making the president prosecutor, judge, and jury. (I’d also argue that the treatment of someone like Bradley Manning wouldn’t have been tolerated before September 11.)
• The current president has also claimed the power to execute U.S. citizens, off the battlefield, without a trial, and to prevent anyone from knowing about it after the fact.
• The Congress approved, the president signed, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a broadly written law making it a crime to advocate for any organization the government deems sympathetic to terrorism. This includes challenging the “terrorist” designation in the first place.
• Flying in America now means enduring a humiliating and hassling ritual that does little if anything to actually make flying any safer. Every time the government fails to catch an attempt at terrorism, it punishes the public for its failure by adding to the ritual.
• American Muslims, a heartening story of success and assimilation, are now harassed and denigrated for merely trying to build houses of worship.
• Without a warrant, the government can search and seize indefinitely the laptops and other personal electronic devices of anyone entering the country.
• The Department of Homeland Security now gives terrorism-fighting grants for local police departments across the country to purchase military equipment, such as armored personnel carriers, which is then used against U.S. citizens, mostly to serve drug warrants.

Hit the link at the top to read the rest of the piece.  It's excellent. 

P.Z. Myers and Matt Welch on Koran burnings and free speech in a time of war....and it looks like we'll always be at war

From P.Z. Myers, of the Pharyngula blog:

Sometimes, issues demand nuance. This is a complicated world and there are a great many subjects that simply aren't reducible to binaries — we do a disservice to the subtleties when we discard them in favor of absolutes. And often I can agree that we need depth and breadth of understanding if we're to navigate a difficult situation.

But sometimes the issues are black and white. Sometimes the answers are clear and absolute. And in those cases, attempts to bring out the watercolors and soften the story by blurring the edges do a disservice to reality. There are places where there are no ambiguities, and the only appropriate response is flat condemnation. And we witness them every day.

....I know what it is like to lose someone you love, and it's a pain so great that I can't imagine reaching out to cause that pain in anyone else; what killers must do is blind themselves to the enormity of their act and wall themselves off from the empathy that all human beings should have. They also must bury that portion of their mind that can sympathize with their victims in an avalanche of pretexts, these excuses that later apologists will call "nuance", or "shades of gray", or "complications". And they will dredge up the familiar roll call of empty ghosts to water down the evil of what is done. They will call it God. Country. Honor. Justice. Revenge. The priests and the mullahs and the politicians and the generals are experts at softening the contrast and blurring the edges and persuading one person that that other person over there, so much like you in every way that matters, deserves to have everything important extinguished and brutalized and disregarded.

They are so damned good at it that they can stir up the killing frenzy over anything at all. A gang of fanatics, driven by superstition and ethnic bigotry, kill thousands in a terrorist attack in one country. So zealots stir up their own froth of superstition and ethnic bigotry, and convince the targeted country to attack and kill people of yet another country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. What a waste of lives, yet everyone on both sides is smug and confident that the deaths on the other side were warranted.

Or even more ridiculously remote: one side takes such extreme offense at the lack of reverence shown by a few people on the other side towards some copy of a sacred object, that they then slaughter unrelated targets.

Stirred up by three angry mullahs who urged them to avenge the burning of a Koran at a Florida church, thousands of protesters on Friday overran the compound of the United Nations in this northern Afghan city, killing at least 12 people, Afghan and United Nations officials said.


Unable to find Americans on whom to vent their anger, the mob turned instead on the next-best symbol of Western intrusion — the nearby United Nations headquarters. "Some of our colleagues were just hunted down," said a spokesman for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Kieran Dwyer, in confirming the attack.

These twelve people were human beings, reduced to a statistic in a newspaper article, and dehumanized and exterminated by a mindless mob, inflamed by religious fanatics. Similarly, the hundred thousand or more killed in Iraq, the ongoing war in Afghanistan, all of these are also genuine, thinking, feeling human beings, wiped out in a cold-hearted calculus of delusion and greed. There is no justification sufficient for these acts.

Yet somehow we get lost in the wrong questions. Do we have the right to burn the Koran? Is it unreasonable to think that Afghans might have cause to be angry? Should we not defend the right of fascist politicians to live, and perhaps it is OK to grant a limited license to murder to certain people if they are of the correct political stripe or the appropriate faith? Shall we weigh the sins of a Florida preacher against those of three Afghan clerics, and come up with a number that will tell us which is the greater offender, and by how much?

I'm an extremist in this debate, I will freely confess. I hold an absolute view that no killing is ever justified, that individuals have the necessity to defend themselves against assailants, but that even that does not grant moral approval to snuffing out the life of another. Don't even try to pull out a scale and toss a copy of the Koran on one side and the life of a single human being on the other — the comparison is obscene. Do not try to tell me that some people are 'moderates' when they tolerate or even support and applaud war and death and murder for any cause, whether it is oil, or getting even, or defending the honor of wood pulp and ink.

The bone is bleached white. The flesh is burnt black. The blood splashes scarlet. You can't render it in grays and pastels without losing sight of the truth.

Hit the link to read the whole thing.  One of the best he's ever written. 

And now for something completely different....Here's the ultra libertarian Reason magazine's Matt Welch, hammering away at the same subject, but from a totally different worldview. 

Here's what Sen. Lindsey Graham(R-S.C.) said today about Florida pastor Terry Jones' burning of a
Koran, which has been used an excuse by Afghanis to murder 22 people, including seven United Nations workers:

I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy.

More politician condemnations of Jones here.
You know what? We're always going to be in a war, thanks in no small part to the Lindsey Grahams of the world. Which means if we truly value our free speech, we're gonna have to bounce out every politician who subjects American expression to a wartime litmus test. Better yet, maybe start electing some who at least
occasionally refrain from supporting new wars against majority-Muslim countries that have yet to make it through a Reformation.
Because when we have a political class as routinely venal as Lindsey Graham—or Time's Joe Klein, who really did write that "Jones's act was murderous as any suicide bomber's"—that means that war-inspired censorship is always just a shout away.

Legislative maneuver of the week

Y'know, Senator Rand Paul just might be for real. 

On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”


To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.”

GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure.

From Hot Air:

If you’re Boehner or Cantor or Allen West or Mike Pence, how do you vote in order to simultaneously (a) support the Air Force and Navy while they’re executing a mission, (b) protect the GOP’s hawkish credentials, (c) express your doubts about the utility of the mission and how it’s being executed, and (d) challenge Obama on his absurd hypocrisy about the president’s military prerogatives, especially given the contempt he’s showed Congress thus far? Tough vote. So tough that I wonder if Reid’s tempted to vote on a resolution in the Senate just to force Boehner to take it up and choke on it.

I'm starting to like me some Rand Paul. 

Whatever happened to the anti-war movement?

Reason magazine asks the obvious question....

And from David Boaz:

In October 2007, Obama proclaimed, “I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.” Speaking of Iraq in February 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, “I was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.”

Today, however, he has tripled President Bush’s troop levels in Afghanistan, and we have been fighting there for more than nine years. The Pentagon has declared “the official end to Operation Iraqi Freedom and combat operations by United States forces in Iraq,” but we still have 50,000 troops there, hardly what Senator Obama promised.

Yeah, and we've got 9 more months to go in 2011.  Who will bomb next, Iran or Pakistan?  I'm voting Pakistan. 

Quotes and actions that will make your Bovine Excrement Meter go into the red

From our Constitutional Law Professor In Chief, back when he was running for office:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

From Ralph Nader, who thinks it is time for impeachment:

"Why don't we say what's on the minds of many legal experts; that the Obama administration is committing war crimes and if Bush should have been impeached, Obama should be impeached," Nader said in an interview with the anti-war Democracy Now! organization.

Nader's comments came before the U.S. launched military strikes into Libya on Saturday but are among the toughest criticisms Obama has endured from the left.
The consumer advocate participated in an anti-war demonstration outside the White House this weekend, during which over 100 protesters were arrested.

Here are some more anti-invasion quotes from Candidate Obama, from the Verum Serum website:

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.

Well, yeah.  I think we've proven that already.  Here's Hot Air, reminiscing about the last time we saw objectives that were as muddled as those of our Barack 'n' Hillary's Excellent Libyan Adventure:

The American military has the facilities and experience to assume tactical direction of the operation, and that appears to be what has shaken out.  That doesn’t mean we are in charge from the standpoint of policy or strategy.  There is an enormous difference between our public finding out about the command assignments second-hand, through the news media, and the communication practices of the last seven presidents, which were direct, explicit, involved, and responsible.  We haven’t had an administration even close to this coy about the use of force since Lyndon Johnson’s.

Ouch. 
Ok, you remember that scene in "Taxi Driver" when Robert De Niro is on a pay phone in a hallway, and he discovers something that is so painful that the camera has to turn away, shifting its eye away from the humiliation that De Niro's character is going through?  Well, the guys at The Riehl World have re-posted an old Andrew Sullivan piece called "Top 10 Reasons Conservatives Should Vote For Obama".  What they've done to it hurts.  It really hurts.  And like Martin Scorsese, I'm not going to show any of it to you.  You'll have to hit this link if you choose to go there.  It's like watching someone torturing puppies.  You've been warned. 

And finally, here's the U.K. Guardian, via Reason magazine:

Muammar Gaddafi has been handed a "non-negotiable ultimatum" by Barack Obama to accept an immediate ceasefire, pull back from Libyan rebel strongholds and permit humanitarian assistance – or face the full onslaught of UN-endorsed air strikes.
In an attempt to reassure Middle East opinion and his own domestic audience, Obama said the US would help to co-ordinate a no-fly-zone, but not lead an operation that will include French, British and Arab jets.

You probably need one of these by now, don't you?  Don't you wish everyone had purchased one before the 2008 elections? 









Bovine Excrement Meters stolen from here. 

Touched by an invasion

Here's a close approximation of the Neocon response to Obama's decision to go into Libya....

The difference between the Iraq War and the coming Libyan War.

In which someone contrasts Iraq and Libya on Ann Althouse's blog:

Iraq – blood for oil, war for neocon corporate interests and U.S. hegemony only
Libya – no blood, no oil. Obama’s motives pure because, well, good women are running the show for him – Hillary, Susan, Samantha – and everyone knows that when women (and the French of course) run a war good things happen!

Iraq – weapons of mass destruction what weapons of mass destruction?
Libya – no weapons of mass destruction because, well, okay, because Bush invaded Iraq and Gaddafi shit his pants and gave up his nukes. Pshew!

Iraq – benign dictator who never hurt anyone, wasn’t a threat to his neighbors, did not support terrorists, and, through the Oil for Food program, only wanted to share his oil with Europe in exchange for food and medicine for his long suffering people
Libya – Gaddafi is acting like a big jerk.

All clear now?  Good. 

Barack Obama has fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined !!!

From the comments of the Just One Minute Blog:

Barack Obama has now been responsible for firing more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined.


He's still in 2nd place for number of Arab deaths caused (and 3rd place for Muslim deaths) behind Yassir Arafat and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Yeah, I thouht that when a politician got the Nobel, it was for negotiating, or talking, or de-fusing tense situations. 

The pic came from here. 

The Three Women Who Led Barack Obama Into War With Libya

Lord have mercy, what a week. 

Here's Ann Althouse on the Code Pink group, and the three women who led Barack Obama by the nose into Libya. 

It's the opposite of the Code Pink idea that women bring the peace. How long have I heard this feminist plaint: If only women had the power, we would have peace, not phallocratic war.

Well, Ms. Althouse doesn't agree to let an interesting theory get in the way of some cold hard facts:

In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton... changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.


Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act...

... Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.

Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention....

Is this kinda like Bush being led into war by Rumsfeld and Cheney?  I'm sure that the facts will come out later. 

Here's the latest zinger from Ms. Althouse:

To ally with Power and Rice, Clinton had to make "an unusual break with Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who, along with the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and the counterterrorism chief, John O. Brennan, had urged caution." Oh, timid men. Step aside! Yield to the boldness of women.

Ouch. 

She Whose Name Is Not Spoken has already announced that she doesn't want to be Secretary Of State any longer.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that she's going to run against The Teleprompter next year. 

To the eternal credit of the Code Pink group, they did design this little gem of a poster:

That was before we opened a 3rd front in the Middle East. 
Code Pink doesn't have anything condemning this latest "intervention" on their website yet.  We'll see. 

They do have a bookmark that you can slip into copies of Don Rumsfeld's biography that accuses him of being a war criminal. 
Here's the bookmark that stealth shoppers can slip into unsold copies of George Bush's "Decision Points". 
And here's a handy link telling readers how to execute a citizen's arrest, just in case they want to detain one of the warmongers from the Bush administration. 

I'm looking forward to seeing the bookmark they design to slip into copies of "Dreams From My Father", by Barack Obama.
I'm looking foward to seeing these ladies take to the streets in protests next week. 
Or not. 

"No Blood For Oil" - Libya edition

From my buddies over at the Gotta Get Drunk First blog.  A couple of headlines dated exactly 8 years apart:

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

Is there anyone out there who thinks we'll be out of Libya in 8 years? 
Any takers? 

According to some of the Talking Head on Meet The Depressed this morning, we're already moving beyond enforcing the "No Fly Zone".  We've already bombed a few of Gaddafi's troops.  We're taking sides in a civil war.  Qaddafi is a very bad man, but we have no freakin' clue as to the character or goals of the people opposing him.  If I'm not mistaken, the complexity of Libya's tribal loyalties makes Iraq look as homogeneous as a Klan rally. 

We have learned absolutely nothing from the past 8 years. 

A poster from the Brazilian Socialist Worker's Party

My friend Harper over at Passed Up Strange has an interesting post about the Brazilian oil company Petrobas (partially owned by George Soros), our own drilling bans, and some of the hostility that The Teleprompter Jesus is now facing during his weekend in Brazil. 
It's worth reading, and not just because she graciously includes a link to one of my Facebook rants. 

I mean, where the heck did Harper dig up this priceless poster from the Brazilian Socialist Worker's Party?  Can't the BSWP (something is lost in translation, I'm sure) recognize one of its own? 

Oh well....Prophets are seldom recognized by their own. 
But that doesn't excuse this huge banner, does it? 

I hope this doesn't come across as schadenfreude based on the harsh treatment that Bush received for going to war with even less justification that Obama.  I'm not going to say anything obvious, like HOW IS THAT HOPE AND CHANGE CRAP WORKING OUT FOR YOU?????

In my case, it is about Not Trusting Politicians.  None of them.  

As long as they are in the thrall of the military/industrial machine, as long as they can be bought and sold like East Fort Worth Crack Whores, as long as people like Hillary Clinton She Whose Name Is Not Spoken can whisper seductive promises of military glory in their ears, they're going to get us into messes like we're about to enter in Libya. 
We're going in with no idea how to get out.  How the hell can we end a war whose stated objective is to provide humanitarian assistance, air cover, and logistical support, but does not say anything about removing Gaddafi????
Saddam slaughtered 90,000 Kurds while the international community did nothing.  I'm glad we hung the S.O.B.   But we're the ones left cleaning up the mess. 
The nutcase running Libya deserves the same fate.  But why do we have to be the ones to deal with it every single time? 
We might be doing the right thing in Libya, but the Brazilian Socialist Worker's Party sure doesn't appreciate it. 

P.S. - I think I'm going to sit and drink double espressos and blog about this glorious farce until 9:00 p.m.  Can someone bring me food?