Obama Never Went To Congress on Libya Because He Never Expected To Have To;
Oh, and Impeach Him

People are overthinking the whole question of whether the President should have gone to Congress to authorize the Libya war. They're especially overthinking why he chose not to.

It's quite simple. The President didn't go to Congress because he never thought he'd need to go to Congress. Obama spent three weeks dithering and then almost a full week telegraphing his intent not to intervene. But when the time came to announce his decision, he flinched and made a last-second gut decision to go to war.

The decision to commit the United States to war wasn't out of any sudden change of heart about the value of Libyan lives. Nor did the President suddenly discover U.S. national interests in North Africa. He did it because he was getting internationally embarrassed by the French and by Secretary Clinton. He did it because he was looking bad and after three and a half weeks of polling his numbers were looking worse.

So, having failed to make any effort at all to reach out to Congress on the issue because he never expected that he would have to and with his Brazil vacation imminent, there simply wasn't any time left to get Congressional authorization. Yes, he could have gotten it, in the sense that I'm absolutely sure the votes are there. But it would have taken a few more days and not even the MBM could pretend that he was "leading" on the Libya issue at that point.

As for the Constitutional issue -- should he have to go to Congress to commit the United States to war? -- well, yes.

As any constitutional conservative knows, Congress has the authority to declare war. And while this doesn't require that Congress use any particular magic words ("this is a declaration of war"), it does require that they authorize the President to order military action against another country. With a single exception during President Clinton's second term, Presidents have for the past 40 years or so always gotten Congressional authorization for war action prior to or at least contemporaneously with military action. It seems Obama isn't even planning to get retroactive authorization and that's a problem.

The possible exception to this clear constitutional rule is under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Setting aside whether the resolution is even constitutional, it at least would provide cover for a President committing the United States to war without going to Congress for a while. But according to its text the President can only invoke the War Powers Resolution to go to war if the United States is under attack or serious threat. Obama cannot possibly claim that was the case before he went to war against Libya.

So this is yet another end run around Congress, which is what he's been doing since well before the GOP took back the House. Only this is far worse than merely avoiding Congress on Yucca Mountain, offshore drilling, net neutrality, card check, and cap and trade. The President has committed the United States to war and placed Service Members in danger without constitutionally-required authority to do so.

Waging war in violation of the U.S. Constitution sounds like a High Crime to me. So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:43 AM



Comments

1 And he can't plead ignorance of the law. Here is his comment from 2007 on the topic. Interesting flip-flop!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 22, 2011 07:48 AM (LH6ir)

2 Malor is overthinking the whole question "why the President did not go to Congress to authorize the Libyan war".

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 07:51 AM (H+LJc)

3 "I didn't think I had to." -- Present Precedent

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 07:52 AM (H+LJc)

4 When do we vote to impeach this guy?

Posted by: sTevo at March 22, 2011 07:52 AM (VMcEw)

5 IMO, the President as CiC has the authority to commit troops to action without Congress. The Congress can cut off the money if they desire, or impeach him, but that's it.

Posted by: toby928™ at March 22, 2011 07:54 AM (GTbGH)

6 I got your impeachment right here.

Posted by: Bill Clinton, Serial Rapist at March 22, 2011 07:56 AM (Ig+B0)

7 Why don't they just impound him?

.....without cigarettes

Posted by: ontherocks at March 22, 2011 07:57 AM (HBqDo)

8 well Gabe people like Patterico seem to feel that turning the table on Chicago je$u$ is unsporting or something....

Posted by: sven10077 at March 22, 2011 07:59 AM (kq1lG)

9 1 CBD,

yeah but you're forgetting his defense if he were ever made to answer questions with candor and honesty....

"I am a democrat so whatever I do is just."

They did something to some arse named Charles over in England for that level of smarm once.

Posted by: sven10077 at March 22, 2011 08:01 AM (kq1lG)

10 *crickets*

Posted by: GOP leadership at March 22, 2011 08:04 AM (TpXEI)

11 "Why don't we impeach him": President Joe Biden!

-- Just when you thought it could not get worse.

Posted by: Michael K. at March 22, 2011 08:04 AM (yx1S7)

12
Guys, guys. Expecting the first black president to have to go to congress over every little war is racist, pure and simple. I'm surprised you hadn't figured that out.
tsk.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at March 22, 2011 08:06 AM (r1h5M)

13 Impeach a black man? Yeah, the GOP has the balls for that.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 22, 2011 08:06 AM (OW0nw)

14 Well damn, didn't see this post. I posted this in TH, but you all need to see how Obama spent the evening:

You know why I dislike this President?
THIS

Unfortunately,
it is the rule, not the exception. We are fighting three wars, the
actual unemployment figures are over 10%, the number of homeless
families with children rise everyday, there are flash mobs holding businesses hostage in Columbus, OH, etc., etc.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:07 AM (penCf)

15
No speech?
Overreach?
Impeach!

Posted by: ya2daup at March 22, 2011 08:08 AM (hsLUJ)

16 So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.
Because he WON, Gabe!
Geesh, are all the questions this easy?
</sarc>

Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 22, 2011 08:09 AM (sbV1u)

17 If the White House is pressed on this, they are going to rely on the AUMF from post 9/11 - it says Congress authorizes the President to go after terrorists. And they will suddenly discover that Khaddafy supported terrorism. Unexpectedly!

That will be their position. Michael Moore will complain, Andrew Sullivan may become more heartsick, but, seriously, what are the pinkos going to do - primary Obama with Kucinich?

Posted by: blaster at March 22, 2011 08:09 AM (Fw2Gg)

18 Impeach a black man? Yeah, the GOP has the balls for that. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 22, 2011 08:06 AM (OW0nw) The only balls they have for anything are in their golf bags.


Posted by: Tami at March 22, 2011 08:09 AM (VuLos)

19 Yeah. Impeachment would go over about as well as a fart in church. Maybe the GOP could go after the 90% white side of the purple lipped jesus.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 22, 2011 08:10 AM (yQWNf)

20 And in other military news, Bradley Manning is languishing in prison while the new, legal Dick Sucking Fiesta gets underway in the army. Poetic Justice.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 22, 2011 08:10 AM (OW0nw)

21 Interesting theory, but Empire of Jeff is right, never gonna happen, no way, no how.
Maybe they could muster up the cajones to at least point out that what he is doing is arguably illegal, and how he was one of the biggest anti-war whiners prior to taking the hot seat himself.

Posted by: RM at March 22, 2011 08:11 AM (TRsME)

22 That worked out so well the last time they impeached a Democrat to. It could happen in the House but the Senate? I'm surprised you can't hear me laughing.

Not that I wouldn't like to see him impeached or removed from office, its just not going to happen.

Posted by: Gmac at March 22, 2011 08:11 AM (Rfs9Z)

23 Why Gabe, I declare, you are soooo precious. Don't you know impeachment is for really serious constitutional violations, like dick-sucking in the Oval Office?

Posted by: Andrea Mitchell's Universe at March 22, 2011 08:11 AM (le5qc)

24 Gabe - - great analysis. You nailed it.

Posted by: Tonawanda at March 22, 2011 08:12 AM (bN5ZU)

25 my liberal friends are tying themselves into knots over this...twisting and spinning furiously while trying to cover for their man-boy in office. its quite hilarious to watch really. theyve overplayed their hand in obama and im relishing it all.


Posted by: str8 outta at March 22, 2011 08:12 AM (Hznyf)

26 Apologist McCain explains Obama (AWOL).

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 08:13 AM (H+LJc)

27 Um, guys, I watched the news yesterday (which I do about once every other month) and I didn't see one Republican giving an interview on the subject.

I also didn't read much from the GOP on the subject.

Since the Dems have most the media, the GOP should hire journalist to interview all the outspoken Bush critics on why they now think this action is justified.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:14 AM (penCf)

28 "Since the Dems have most the media, the GOP should hire journalist to
interview all the outspoken Bush critics on why they now think this
action is justified."

---they'll most definitely say that the world got together and called for it....so hey, we should do the UN's bidding you know...

....then they'll bitch and moan about "policing the world" or something....then go smoke a bowl.

Posted by: str8 outta at March 22, 2011 08:16 AM (Hznyf)

29 I posted a link yesterday that had the AP already arguing that Obama was legally justified in not getting Congressional approval. The article was about BO's letter to Congress.

So the MSM is already defending him. They even brought up - to slam down - what he said during the campaign.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:17 AM (penCf)

30 The article was about BO's letter to Congress.

Wasn't that letter after the fact?

Posted by: Tami at March 22, 2011 08:18 AM (VuLos)

31 I guess the MSM is using their lawyer-speak to justify obama lol parsing words and splitting hairs in order to justify his bombing. what a bunch of nincompoops, never ceases to amaze me really.

where is cindy sheehan by the way? shouldn't she be camping outside of the white house? with that overly annoying face of hers...

Posted by: str8 outta at March 22, 2011 08:20 AM (Hznyf)

32 Maybe Congress could inform him that his action requires they give him a C instead of the usual A.

Posted by: kansas at March 22, 2011 08:20 AM (nNgbi)

33 Wasn't that letter after the fact?
Posted by: Tami at March 22, 2011 08:18 AM (VuLos)
Shhhhhh. It doesn't matter. Doncha know Obama is black! We wouldn't want to been seen as racist now would we.........

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 22, 2011 08:21 AM (yQWNf)

34 So we already lost one F-15 in this little fiasco.

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 08:23 AM (0GFWk)

35 So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now

Because, as you said early on in your screed, the votes for another ME war are there. Vote taken->impeachment moot.

Why is it we can always find the votes for another ME war but can't find more than a handfull of votes to avert a debt tsunami?

Posted by: Mr. Diddy Wah Diddy at March 22, 2011 08:25 AM (crfl4)

36 Ron Paul: Obama's actions are unconstitutional

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:25 AM (penCf)

37 We should be.

But the Republicans don't have the balls.

Posted by: MlR at March 22, 2011 08:25 AM (uxyPr)

38 Imio, one can tell how big of a deal this is by the dead silence of the MFM. I believe that they know that even a whimper of this in the news will open the floodgates.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at March 22, 2011 08:26 AM (r1h5M)

39 Our first black president unlawfully and indiscriminately killing Africans? Nothing to see here.

/racist
/denounced
/etc.


Posted by: Old Timey Country Clubbers at March 22, 2011 08:26 AM (GwPRU)

40
Why Gabe, I declare, you are soooo precious. Don't you know impeachment
is for really serious constitutional violations, like dick-sucking in
the Oval Office?

It was about lying under oath, which is a pretty serious thing. And I've never heard anybody disagree that he lied under oath. People just say he didn't lie about anything important, so what's the big deal?

The people who say that, of course, are the reason America is the debt-laden basketcase it is today.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 22, 2011 08:26 AM (TpXEI)

41 I heard a clip of the President on the radio - did I hear this right? He said we are in Libya because the UN mandate told us to? Really?

Posted by: blaster at March 22, 2011 08:27 AM (Fw2Gg)

42 Posted by: sven10077 at March 22, 2011 08:01 AM (kq1lG)

Maybe Obama (pbuh) will leave for Bermuda and try to form an alliance to attack the U.S.?

And then we can hang him for treason.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 22, 2011 08:28 AM (LH6ir)

43 Imio, one can tell how big of a deal this is by the dead silence of the MFM.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at March 22, 2011 08:26 AM (r1h5M)
Looks like Journolist 2.0 did a great job of working out the bugs.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at March 22, 2011 08:28 AM (A/oSU)

44 Well, that and they don't have any problem supporting unconstitutional actions if they support the end result. And, unfortunately, nowadays they're generally always up for another military action.

Posted by: MlR at March 22, 2011 08:29 AM (uxyPr)

45 It was about lying under oath, which is a pretty serious thing. And I've never heard anybody disagree that he lied under oath. People just say he didn't lie about anything important, so what's the big deal?

The people who say that, of course, are the reason America is the debt-laden basketcase it is today.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 22, 2011 08:26 AM (TpXEI)

Personally I thought he was impeached because he was the President of the United States and could have had a whole bevy of knock out women, but picked that overweight ugly Monica. No wTHAT is an impeachable offense!

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 08:29 AM (0GFWk)

46 I also didn't read much from the GOP on the subject.Since
the Dems have most the media, the GOP should hire journalist to
interview all the outspoken Bush critics on why they now think this
action is justified.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:14 AM (penCf)
You should read "Deconstructing Obama", Jack Cashill's book. He describes how the RCM (respectable conservative media) all punted on his expose' in the leadup to Nov '08.He mentions specifically, National Review, Weekly Standard and Human Events. Rush mentioned his AT piece on only one day and got no follow up then dropped it.The vaunted James Taranto and Jonah Goldberg stabbed him in the back in the media, with only American Thinker's honcho Lifson and WND with the spunk to debunk the Obama fraud.This is a page turning must read book for anyone here that wonders why there is no real opposition.
The front line in conservative media caved like fucking cowards.

Posted by: ontherocks at March 22, 2011 08:30 AM (HBqDo)

47 Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 08:29 AM (0GFWk)

Whatever else one might think of JFK, he had good taste in women. He banged some hotties in the White House swimming pool!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 22, 2011 08:31 AM (LH6ir)

48 The article was about BO's letter to Congress.

Wasn't that letter after the fact?


Posted by: Tami at March 22, 2011 08:18 AM (VuLos)

The letter was sent last night.I don't know how to post a link that takes you back to my post from last night, so I'll just repost:Obama Letter to Congress on Libya Sparks Protests

WASHINGTON-President Barack Obama Monday formally notified Congress
the U.S. had begun military attacks on Libya, prompting complaints from
lawmakers that the president waged war without congressional consent,
appearing to contradict his own previous position.

In a letter to congressional leaders, the president said the U.S. had
"commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by
the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council" and "to prevent a
humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international
peace and security by the crisis in Libya."
...AP's defense of BO's actions here...
Mr. Obama's notification letter does not satisfy the constitutional
requirement that Congress approve military action, says Lou Fisher,
former researcher with the Congressional Research Service and an expert
on war powers. Mr. Fisher also raised objections to Mr. Obama citing
United Nations authorization in his letter.
"It's impossible for Congress to take its war powers and give it to
the U.N.," Mr. Fisher said. "Other than defensive actions—and there's no
defensive actions here—this has to be done by Congress."


YET:
ABC reported that the WH had already talked to Congress:

The senior White House official told ABC News earlier today that the
White House consulted with Congress before any military action began,
and will continue to do so. Administration officials for weeks kept
members of Congress informed as to how events were developing.


"We take the consultative role very seriously," the official said.


On a practical level, the official said, this was "a fast-moving event
that took place when Congress was not in session. In order to stop an
imminent humanitarian catastrophe, we had to move very fast, and we
still convened a bipartisan congressional meeting."

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:32 AM (penCf)

49 Gabe, you know well that maybe you can get the House to impeach, but can you get the Senate to convict and remove? Doubtful. Without the Senate, impeachment is a slap on the wrist

Posted by: The Cheese Stands Alone at March 22, 2011 08:33 AM (RYmQ5)

50 I shall impeach him on my home planet.



*swiped from Confederate Yankee

Posted by: Dennis Kucinich at March 22, 2011 08:33 AM (WvXvd)

51 Gabriel,
Reagan did NOT seek Congressional approval before air raiding Libya in 1986. Whether he did so retrospectively, I do not know.
Please update your post.
- Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 22, 2011 08:34 AM (8s4dZ)

52 So impeachment is probably out, but can we start a letter writing campaign to get this to happen:

Russian Duma Leader Wants Obama Stripped of Nobel Peace Prize

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:35 AM (penCf)

53 Whatever else one might think of JFK, he had good taste in women. He banged some hotties in the White House swimming pool!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 22, 2011 08:31 AM (LH6ir)

And I bet he had the good taste to get a few broads for the reporters also, so that they never ratted on him

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 08:36 AM (0GFWk)

54 I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.
Think of the time and effort involved to have the Senate say, "Fuck you."

Posted by: Truman North at March 22, 2011 08:36 AM (8ay4x)

55 Gabe
What about the war powers act?
It seems like the CinC gets 90 days to fight a war without congressional authorization.

Also, do you think Congress wanted to vote on this? How do you think the Tea Partiers would have voter, or the other republicans, or heck even the democrats.
Sure you'd have the McCain and Liebermans in the senate voting for it, but I am guessing not to many people would want to vote to go to war the year before an election

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 08:37 AM (wuv1c)

56 Calls of impeachment are absolutely justified, but they'll be met with the same scoffing disregard as calls for Obama to release his birth certificate. There will be no sage discussion or academic review of the facts of the situation. It will simply be discounted as immaterial.
Allow me to channel Andrea Mitchell's inevitable reaction:
"Talk of impeachmentshould not even be part of any legitimatediscussion on the Libya situation. It's a conspiracy cooked up by radical right wing extremists who hate seeing a black man in the White House, and they're going to do anything they can to see him removed from office, even if that means inventing trumped up charges of 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' They're no different than Birthers. It's frankly disgusting."
Please note thatcalls for impeachmentwill be"blamed" on "right wing extremists" even if the ones baying most loudly for Obama's head on a platterare the kook leftistfringe. The media know where their bread is buttered, and so do the ruling class. Better to tar and feather the "extremists" who will never vote for you than the moonbats who will fall for any old lie you tell them like the bunch of knee-jerk reactionists they are.

Posted by: MWR at March 22, 2011 08:38 AM (4df7R)

57 So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.

Because he's blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

Posted by: nickless at March 22, 2011 08:40 AM (MMC8r)

58 Maybe they could muster up the cajones to at least point out that what he is doing is arguably illegal
They'll shit themselves trying to quickly pass something to make it all on the up and up. And consider themselves courageous for it.

Posted by: Mama AJ at March 22, 2011 08:40 AM (XdlcF)

59 Forgive them for they know not what they do (or speak).

Posted by: The Messiah at March 22, 2011 08:42 AM (plLN9)

60 43 CBD,

maybe but I am betting that then they would say something like, "he is not a traitor he is just a visionary trying to make America be the nation it always promised to be."


The media is so in the tank for the guy they need an octane rating.

Posted by: sven10077 at March 22, 2011 08:42 AM (kq1lG)

61 OT, IMPORTANT

Wisconsin Republicans Ask For Help: "We are in the fight of our lives"
The Committee to Elect a Republican Senate (CERS), the main campaign committee for Senate Republicans, is trying to raise money for the eight Republicans who face a recall.



"We are in the midst of a crucial time," a fund-raising letter says.
"CERS is waging a counter-battle against the unions and other well
funded liberal special interest money fueling these recall elections." The letter adds: "We are in the fight of our lives. We can assure you the Senate Republicans are up for the fight, but we need to know you stand behind us."The donation page is here.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:42 AM (penCf)

62 "It seems Obama isn't even planning to get retroactive authorization and that's a problem. "

Was going to say that it may not be too late for him to get Congressional approval. But it sure seems like he don't give a flying f()(%!

Posted by: Peacenick at March 22, 2011 08:43 AM (nomGb)

63 Let's apply the same rule, what if Bush did this? Impeach him. In addition to authorizing this bombing, he is in Brazil, not the WH talking to the DOD and others that know exactly what is happening at any moment. He is on vacation, again!

Posted by: Carol at March 22, 2011 08:43 AM (bdB1C)

64 I must really like beating this dead horse. Sure, it is trivially easy to impeach Dear Leader in the House with our (R) advantage. After all, it only requires a 50.1% majority of votes to do this in the House. An impeachment charge is very much like an indictment.

The problem lies in the Senate. They conduct the trial, and must obtain a 2/3 favorable vote to convict and remove him from office. When Bill C. faced the Senate, there were no more than 47 votes to convict on any charge, where 67 votes were needed. In lawyer terms, this was a slam dunk against. Now, do you really believe ANY Dem Senator will vote to convict JugEars on any impeachment charge? If not, then you can rest assured that this move will fail.

If you are doing it for optics, fine, go for it. But don't expect a conviction and removal from this approach. They had Bill's perjured testimony and the stained dress and still failed to convict. So good luck on nailing the JugEared Won.

Posted by: GnuBreed at March 22, 2011 08:43 AM (ENKCw)

65 he will dot the i's and cross the t's when he gets back from vacation. he know the reps won't say shit and the media will cover for him as usual

Posted by: Case at March 22, 2011 08:44 AM (0K+Kw)

66 Bevel Lemenisk,

Speaking of the "no big deal" lying under oath, Clinton = Nixon. Honor aside, timing aside, party affiliation nearly without distinction given Kissinger in charge and both of those presidents in favor of China's "trade" policy promotion of communism at the expense of the US, not really that much distinction between those two men other than personality.

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 08:45 AM (H+LJc)

67 Reagan did NOT seek Congressional approval before air raiding Libya in 1986.
See? I'm just like him. Except better, of course.

Posted by: Prez O. at March 22, 2011 08:46 AM (XdlcF)

68 I just love the people that think they can "write and date the letter now, what difference does it make?".

The more donald trump talks, the more you realize that the left/libs made it so that no US oil company could have any of those oil contracts from Iraq. It's shocking that we did the heavy lifting and, according to trump, the chi coms and russians are reaping the rewards as they have the contracts. This is wholly GWB's fault but it's also the fault of the libs/dems/left....they and their wining and their big mouths and there "it's all about oil" are responsible for depriving the people of the US of the benefits from the war in Iraq. And now, when it is "all about oil" and not our oil for that matter, their silence is wholly deafening.

Posted by: curious at March 22, 2011 08:46 AM (k1rwm)

69 momma

The GOP is yet led by neoconservatives who are all for another war.

It takes an Independent journalist like O'Keefe to bother exposing what's happening.

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 08:46 AM (H+LJc)

70 Is anyone familiar with Truman and the Korean war? This seems like a similar situation.

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 08:46 AM (wuv1c)

71 John Yoo, IIRC, takes an absolutist line on this - the President can command the armed forces to do whatever, wherever, whenever; Congress's power to "declare war" means just that - it is the body that gets to announce when there is a state of war between two countries; it does not get to decide whether/how to blow things up and shoot people. (Not sure if Yoo means the executive cando this"in the absence of legislation" or whether he means "even in the face of ostensibly binding legislation.)

Posted by: Knemon at March 22, 2011 08:47 AM (Da+uN)

72 Impeachment? Shouldn't we be talking about Nullification first? If the man isn't even qualified to BE President, why should subsequent crimes be an issue?


If we had made a proper stink about this in the first place, we would not now be having to deal with the ramifications of an Unqualified person missusing the office, But for some STRANGE reason, a bunch of people on OUR side decided to attack anyone who questioned the man's legitimacy.

AND THEY STILL WON'T ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG!

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 08:47 AM (/G5LI)

73 Is anyone familiar with Truman and the Korean war? This seems like a similar situation.

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 08:46 AM (wuv1c)

How so?

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 08:49 AM (0GFWk)

74 Question: Why would Obama do this? Is it on purpose? Or is he just stupid.
Obama pisses off the people of Afghanistan, again, this time by only adressing Iran in his 'Nawroz festival address'



Nawroz festival (also spelt nowroz, nowruz and several other ways) falls
on spring equinox it is a public holiday in Iran, Afghanistan,
Tajikistan, Iraqi
Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kashmir and Kyrgyzstan,
according to Wikipedia.

But Obama’s message was addressed almost entirely to Iranians. “This
is a holiday for the Iranian people to spend time with friends and
family,” Obama said, launching a discussion of the country’s past and
future challenges, after just a briefest of “best wishes to all who are
celebrating Nowruz in the United States and around the world”.

His choice of words did not go unnoticed in Afghanistan, currently
host to almost 100,000 U.S. troops. The popular holiday was once banned
as “un-Islamic” by the hardline Taliban — who U.S. troops are fighting —
and has been celebrated enthusiastically again since their downfall in
2001 .


“President Obama’s Nawroz message was very discouraging not a single
mention of Afghans. I hope he knows, Afghanistan celebrates,” said BBC
journalist Bilal Sarwary in a tweet.


“So Obama thinks Nawroz is only celebrated in Iran? He bypassed
Afghan, Tajik, Uzbek, Kazakh, Turkmen, Kyrgyz STANS some other
non-Stans” said another tweet from user AbasDaiyar.


‘alibomaye’ was even more direct. “Obama gave a Nowroz message to Iran but not Afghanistan and that’s so laaame”.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:49 AM (penCf)

75 I mean, isn't it a little like wanting to charge a man who has committed a "Grand Theft" with vandalism or something?


The FIRST and most DAMAGING offense was fraudulently running for and accepting an office for which he is absolutely NOT QUALIFIED.

This man is an ILLEGITIMATE President from day one. Subsequent acts of illegitimacy are inconsequential until the first and most damaging act of illegitimacy is addressed.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 08:50 AM (/G5LI)

76 It would seem that the Dali Bama's community organizing skills are limited in there reach. Who knew? Remember, he went to Harvard - so he is smarter and more accomplished than you and me. Skool isimportant, UmmKay, don't drop out of skool.

Posted by: NEA Local Capo at March 22, 2011 08:51 AM (Q5+Og)

77 Letter to Congress? It was probably a postcard of the Christ The Redeemer statue, with him writing

"Check this - this is me doing that thing from Titanic. 'I'm the King of the World!' Lolzx!!! Golf is great and I'm bombing Libya. Michelle's at the buffet again but she says hi. There's more underage thong-split booty up in this bitch than a playa can shake a stick at. Holla at a mothafucka if y'all need som'in'."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 22, 2011 08:52 AM (OW0nw)

78 Hey, DiogenesLamp - what do you think would happen if today the President were found to be born in a foreign country? What is this "nullification" of which you speak? Is the process spelled out somewhere?

Our Constitution does not contemplate removal of the unqualified from office. Suppose you prove it - what do you have?

Posted by: blaster at March 22, 2011 08:52 AM (Fw2Gg)

79 Is anyone familiar with Truman and the Korean war? This seems like a similar situation. Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 08:46 AM (wuv1c) How so?
Going to war under the authority of a UN resolution.

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 08:53 AM (wuv1c)

80 Waging war in violation of the U.S. Constitution sounds like a High
Crime to me. So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be
talking about impeachment right now.

It is not possible to impeach/convict a Democrat President. Half of the Republicans and all of the Democrats would not support it.

Posted by: Vic at March 22, 2011 08:53 AM (M9Ie6)

81 In addition to authorizing this bombing, he is in
Brazil, not the WH talking to the DOD and others that know exactly what
is happening at any moment. He is on vacation, again!

Posted by: Carol at March 22, 2011 08:43 AM (bdB1C)
But, But,but....they released this picture to assure the masses that he is a great leader!

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:53 AM (penCf)

82 Truman responded to the late June 1950attackusinga UN resolution condemning the NK attack, he and the SecState secured funding from Congress in August.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 22, 2011 08:54 AM (WvXvd)

83 meant to add, the Korean conflict predates the War Powers Act, but you could argue we were defending ourselves too, we had troops occupying Korea south of the 38th from the time of Japan's surrender until then.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 22, 2011 08:56 AM (WvXvd)

84 Also, the Republicans in Congress are probably perfectly happy with the President not seeking Congressional approval - because they likely would have given it.

What, you thought the 2010 elections would put people of principle in power?

Bwahahahaha!

Posted by: blaster at March 22, 2011 08:56 AM (Fw2Gg)

85 Air raiding Libya, Reagan vs. Obama

One fell swoop. Reagan went to great lengths for all strikes to happen simultaneously. And France refused to permit air space, complicating matters immensely to pull off something like 16 strikes at once. That was shock and awe Reagan style. Whereas Bush's shock and awe is the never ending war.

Speaking of which, those killer photos really do "winning the hearts and minds of the enemy" "reprehensible" poetic justice vs. PC social justice directing American warfare today. Ne'er the twain shall meet. One will always trump the other, and on goes the never ending war over which end of the egg to crack open.

And Der Spiegel released them just as America crossed Germany over this Libyan attack. Obama shouldn't mess with Merkel.

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 08:57 AM (H+LJc)

86 Going to war under the authority of a UN resolution.

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 08:53 AM (wuv1c)

Yeah but in that case WE wanted the resolution and pushed it forward and was not dragged by our noses. And we also had, or thought we had, National Security Interests in defending South Korea and a definitive goal in mind-defeating the North Koreans. Of course the Chicoms had thoughts of their own, but that's another story. In Libya we have no National Security Interests what so ever

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 08:57 AM (0GFWk)

87 Fo snizzle - what u honkies talking about? I notified the crackers good and hard.

Posted by: Barry the Liberator at March 22, 2011 08:58 AM (Q5+Og)

88 Did anyone read Jack Cashill's article on the Obama Social Security number from Connecticut? On the surface, it looks like Obama had such a difficult time with his birth certificate that he couldn't even get a legitimate Social Security number. As a result, he had his old buddy Bill Ayers cobble him up a fake identity. Apparently Bill Ayers did a lot of document forging for fake identities during his Weather Underground days.

The Fake Social Security number was never intended to stand up to the scrutiny that it has engendered, probably because no one in their wildest dreams would have thought Obama could have gotten so far.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 08:58 AM (/G5LI)

89 I've heard impeach tea is kinda nice this time of year...

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 22, 2011 08:59 AM (bgSjf)

90 So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.
Two words: Joe Biden. What, you thought Obama picked him to take Delaware's electoral votes out of play?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 22, 2011 08:59 AM (7EV/g)

91 "In Libya we have no National Security Interests what so ever"

What you say cracker? We have loads of interest in labia.

Posted by: Barry the Liberator at March 22, 2011 08:59 AM (Q5+Og)

92 We have to invade Libya so we can find out what's in it.

Posted by: Nantzi Pelosi at March 22, 2011 09:00 AM (GfXlw)

93 Biden actually did it.

He was holed up in the White House basement, talking about 'purity of essence' while Barack cavorted in Rio.

Posted by: nickless at March 22, 2011 09:00 AM (MMC8r)

94 Oh, and Impeach Him — Gabriel Malor


Finally.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 22, 2011 09:01 AM (G/MYk)

95 It's futile to try and dissect this fiasco at all. All one needs to remember is that the Democrats, from the President on down, hold the Constitution of The United States of America (as written) in total contempt. End of analysis.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at March 22, 2011 09:02 AM (vbh31)

96 Here's a great article dissecting BO's letter to Congress, and stating that by engaging the US, he actually looks weak, not strong:

By what authority has Obama gone to war with Libya?

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 09:02 AM (penCf)

97 The Elephant in the room is Illegitimacy. The man is NOT a legitimate President. If everyone had simply renounced him in the first place we would not now be having to carp and whine about his illegal acts.

His taking office was an illegal act.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 09:03 AM (/G5LI)

98 18 Impeach a black man? Yeah, the GOP has the balls for that.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 22, 2011 08:06 AM (OW0nw) The only balls they have for anything are in their golf bags.


Posted by: Tami at March 22, 2011 08:09 AM (VuLos)
Someone say golf?

Posted by: b+rry at March 22, 2011 09:03 AM (eGMhu)

99 Yeah but in that case WE wanted the resolution and pushed it forward and was not dragged by our noses. And we also had, or thought we had, National Security Interests in defending South Korea and a definitive goal in mind-defeating the North Koreans. Of course the Chicoms had thoughts of their own, but that's another story. In Libya we have no National Security Interests what so ever

I am simply refering to the justification and legality of it.
I am not refering to the build up or story behind it.
We went into Korea under the authority of a UN resolution and we are doing the same thing now.
Also, It's not as though South Korea was extremely important to American security intrerests in 1949-1950. The only reason we went to war there was to give the message that the communists couldn't have all of asia, and help prevent another communist nation from being created on Japan's doorstep. As at that time we were rebuilding Japan in the hopes of having them be a counterbalance in the region, and losing one more friendly, capitilistic trading partner would hinder that effort.

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 09:04 AM (wuv1c)

100 So, having failed to make any effort at all to reach out to Congress on the issue because he never expected that he would have to and with his Brazil vacation imminent, there simply wasn't any time left to get Congressional authorization. Yes, he could have
gotten it, in the sense that I'm absolutely sure the votes are there.
But it would have taken a few more days and not even the MBM could
pretend that he was "leading" on the Libya issue at that point.

Rules and protocols and traditions are for peons and mortals, eh, Obama?

If anybody told Sissypants that he only need to hang his hat on the War Powers Act before authorizing military against Libya, they need to be fired. But I doubt it came to that - we can chalk up this waffling by Obama to sheer laziness and incompetence.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 22, 2011 09:05 AM (9hSKh)

101 In Libya we have no National Security Interests what so ever
I'm no fan of how this was and is being carriet out, but you need to buy a map.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 22, 2011 09:05 AM (B+qrE)

102 Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 08:58 AM (/G5LI) Mentioned Cashill's book @47, and it needs mentioning because it was the smoking gun that got shunned from the get go, and is compelling as hell.

Posted by: ontherocks at March 22, 2011 09:06 AM (HBqDo)

103 Oh, and with all due respect, anyone who holds hope that this president will be held accountable for the gawdawful mess he's created is living a fantasy.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at March 22, 2011 09:06 AM (vbh31)

104 Racism,plain and simple.Certain peoplewill not take this man to task for anything because he is black.It is the only way to explain his poll numbers.Short of a body showing up somewhere(hell,even then,O.J. anyone),there will be no impeachment as it would more than likely start a race war.

Posted by: vae victus at March 22, 2011 09:06 AM (oi4Yx)

105 We have to cutBarry some slack. Remember he had to step down into the presidency from his role as god/emperor of the universe

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 22, 2011 09:06 AM (1Jaio)

106 As I said above, do any of you think congress, other than ron paul, wanted a vote on this?

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 09:07 AM (wuv1c)

107 You might want to put on beck, he's claiming to have a tape and you will be the "first people in America to hear this tape beside the 15 people in this room"

Posted by: curious at March 22, 2011 09:07 AM (k1rwm)

108 Also, It's not as though South Korea was extremely important to American security intrerests in 1949-1950. The only reason we went to war there was to give the message that the communists couldn't have all of asia, and help prevent another communist nation from being created on Japan's doorstep. As at that time we were rebuilding Japan in the hopes of having them be a counterbalance in the region, and losing one more friendly, capitilistic trading partner would hinder that effort.

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 09:04 AM (wuv1c)

Well your looking at it from a reference point of 2011. In 1949 containing Communism was the only show in town. And honestly I don't give 2 shits what the UN of today thinks or wants.

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 09:07 AM (0GFWk)

109 I would also like Harvard Law's accreditation stripped from it, since that joke turns out "Constitutional scholars" like the Indonesian Imbecile, who has done nothing but ignore or violate the Constitution just about every single day since he first slimed into office (having to violate the Constitution just to get into the office, of course - with the blessings of many ... thanks folks, you know who you are).

Harvard Law is a highly destructive organization.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 22, 2011 09:09 AM (G/MYk)

110
Non-interventionism is pro-Constitution.

Neoconservative Interventionism on "moral" grounds comes to fraud when all is said and done.

The media typed "doomed" F-15 downed by technical malfunction will prompt a new push to replace whatever military aircraft contracts with new congressional/joint-chiefs/CinC directed contracts.

Our current Air Force malfunction/dysfunctional problems are many. Overall, see the grand design that amounts to top tier sabotage. Never completing any plan before ditching it for the next, no completions of fleets and no parts for repairs and no refueling mid-air upkeep, has already built-in the means of "doom" and demise.


Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 09:10 AM (H+LJc)

111 momma @62, just gave $25. Thanks for fiinding it....

Posted by: Sukiei Tawdry at March 22, 2011 09:10 AM (ignKC)

112 Let's all remember that the only reason the Korea resolution passed the Security Council was becasue the Sovets were stupidly boycotting.
Back to the national security interests:
I'll just note that hundreds of miles of anarchic shores in Somalia is playing merry hell with world shipping. Think of what hundreds of additional miles on the Med would do. There are demonstrable interests in Libya. That we have not enunciated those interests or announced how we want things to look at the end of whatever it is we are doing is deeply troubling.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 22, 2011 09:12 AM (B+qrE)

113 The front line in [neo]conservative media caved like fucking cowards.


Posted by: ontherocks

Why would they oppose their own agenda?

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 09:12 AM (H+LJc)

114 My problem isn't that he order an attack without Congressional approval, so much as he did it, while packing for vacation.

Plus, there is this: (bet you never heard this story did you?)

From Wed., March 9:

President Barack Obama is meeting Wednesday with Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton before hosting a White House party to watch
basketball.
In between, Obama will meet with the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Richard Eubank. Clinton,
national security adviser Tom Donilon, CIA Director Leon Panetta and
other top officials have scheduled a White House session to examine the
ramifications of a no-fly zone over Libya and other potential military
options, but Obama is not scheduled to attend.
Obama's hometown
Chicago Bulls are playing the Charlotte Bobcats Wednesday night. He has
invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers from Chicago and Charlotte,
N.C., to watch the game with him.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 09:13 AM (penCf)

115 "This is the clearest version of economic terrorism we have ever seen". says beck. He's sending it to JP Morgan Chase and the justcie department. You are about to hear Steven learner.

Posted by: curious at March 22, 2011 09:13 AM (k1rwm)

116 --So this is yet another end run around Congress,I have to make a slight correction, here. This is not an end-run around Congress. That would imply that Barky cares what Congress or the Constitution has to say about this. He doesn't care. He didn't do an end-run around Congress. He just ignored Congress and did whatever the fuck he wanted.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 22, 2011 09:13 AM (G/MYk)

117 115:

Sorry format fail.

From March 9:

Clinton,
national security adviser Tom Donilon, CIA Director Leon Panetta and
other top officials have scheduled a White House session to examine the
ramifications of a no-fly zone over Libya and other potential military
options, but Obama is not scheduled to attend.

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 09:13 AM (penCf)

118 @8
Yep - and this is why the GOP will continue to get corn-holed by the open, brazen hypocrisy of the Democrats and other assorted libtards until and unless they realize they're in a streetfight armed with cheap plasticware from the Chinese restaurant down the street.

Posted by: DocJ at March 22, 2011 09:14 AM (AWzOz)

119 Ok, Ok, I guess I pulled the trigger a little premature, but late.

I'll pay for all those cruise missiles out of my book sales revenue.

Oh, and I never lie.

Posted by: Barry Soetoro at March 22, 2011 09:14 AM (7cXE7)

120 You might want to put on beck, he's claiming to have a tape and you will be the "first people in America to hear this tape beside the 15 people in this room
And you can listen to it.....at the top of the next hour right after this commercial

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 09:14 AM (wuv1c)

121 Add to 119 - though it should be noted that Sen. Rand Paul appears to be one of the few exceptions. Good for him.

Posted by: DocJ at March 22, 2011 09:15 AM (AWzOz)

122 Waging war in violation of the U.S. Constitution sounds like a High Crime to me. So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.

1. ABC
2. NBC
3. CBS
4. NYT
5. WaPo
6. LA Times
7. SF Chronicle
8. Time/Newsweek
9. Vanity Fair
10. Incredibly uninvolved and gullible American electorate.

Posted by: pendejo grande at March 22, 2011 09:16 AM (BSMQQ)

123 I always thought Obama considered the Constitution more of an annoyance anyway, so why would he follow it?

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 22, 2011 09:16 AM (081kp)

124 Fuck, how did I forget CNN?
3(b) CNN

Posted by: pendejo grande at March 22, 2011 09:17 AM (BSMQQ)

125 Think of what hundreds of additional miles on the Med would do. There are demonstrable interests in Libya. That we have not enunciated those interests or announced how we want things to look at the end of whatever it is we are doing is deeply troubling.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 22, 2011 09:12 AM (B+qrE)

yeah and by intervening in Libya with out any idea who the rebels are, with out an plan, with out apparently any leader is gonna lead to exactly that: A lawless Libya and a Lawless coast. Not a bad days work for Obama

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 09:17 AM (0GFWk)

126 "Think of what hundreds of additional miles on the Med would do." --Circa

That doesn't fly.

As if the means to surgically remove pirates on the Med aren't already entrenched from European bases.

Even if the US weren't installed in Europe, as if either European sovereign interests (Germany at the very least, if not France itching at the bit) or European organized crime (mafia) wouldn't contend with Libyan pirates to keep the Med open to perpetuate trade interests.

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 09:18 AM (H+LJc)

127 Now you know why Biden was picked for VP.

Posted by: CDR M at March 22, 2011 09:18 AM (Mv/2X)

128 Agree with several above: In Biden, Obama has the best impeachment insurance ever.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at March 22, 2011 09:19 AM (DmoxJ)

129 "Revealed The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: The Chase Campaign
for a Coalition of Unions, Community Groups, Lawmakers and Students to
Take Down US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth Power"

Posted by: curious at March 22, 2011 09:19 AM (k1rwm)

130 103
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 08:58 AM (/G5LI) Mentioned
Cashill's book @47, and it needs mentioning because it was the smoking
gun that got shunned from the get go, and is compelling as hell.


Posted by: ontherocks at March 22, 2011 09:06 AM (HBqDo)

Cashill is no flake. The man is highly intelligent and does due diligence in all his reporting. I keep abreast of everything he writes and I am impressed with the solidness of his thinking.
The problem with much of his reporting (in the minds of many mainstream Republicans) is that it makes them look like asses for their initial thinking regarding Obama.
They are so committed to not looking foolish that they simply don't want to look at the evidence the man has compiled which contradicts their original narrative. Obama simply isn't qualified. He is a lie wrapped in an falsehood surrounded by a distortion.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 09:21 AM (/G5LI)

131 yeah and by intervening in Libya with out any idea who the rebels are,
with out an plan, with out apparently any leader is gonna lead to
exactly that: A lawless Libya and a Lawless coast. Not a bad days work
for Obama

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 22, 2011 09:17 AM (0GFWk)
We know who the rebels are. We have put together a UN task force that is currently negotiating with the rebel leader, a Mr. Ali G.

Posted by: France at March 22, 2011 09:21 AM (G/MYk)

132 As with donations for public works projects that provide for university improvements or new hospital wings, Biden himself should pay for his namesake train station, financial black hole or not.

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 09:23 AM (H+LJc)

133 The word "clusterfuck" repeatedly comes to mind.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 22, 2011 09:23 AM (pr+up)

134 105
Racism,plain and simple.Certain peoplewill not take this man to task
for anything because he is black.It is the only way to explain his poll
numbers.Short of a body showing up somewhere(hell,even then,O.J.
anyone),there will be no impeachment as it would more than likely start a
race war.

Posted by: vae victus at March 22, 2011 09:06 AM (oi4Yx)

Racism is what elected the man. It is the Soft Racism of Low Expectations. Obama was only elected BECAUSE he was Black. A White man with his credentials and qualifications would have been toast. The Media elites were SO in love with the idea of demonstrating their open mindedness that they simply eschewed even the simplest of requirements so they could feel good about themselves.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 09:24 AM (/G5LI)

135 Momma, did you also see this from that link?
http://tinyurl.com/4gytrhe

We just gave Petrobras, you know the BRAZILIAN oil company, permission to drill in the gulf of Mexico. Only 2 permits for US companies since the BP spill but now we give a fucking permit to Petrobras!?? What.the.fuck.

Posted by: Hedgehog at March 22, 2011 09:26 AM (Rn2kl)

136 In his own ways, Biden is certainly no worse than Obama.

A new VP would require congressional approval. Start the search.

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 09:26 AM (H+LJc)

137 the United States is under attack or serious threat....from you racist violent teabaggers, can I finish my waffle now?

Posted by: You got some DeMint on your shoe at March 22, 2011 09:27 AM (F/4zf)

138 Only 2 permits for US companies since the BP spill but now we give a fucking permit to Petrobras!?? What.the.fuck.


Posted by: Hedgehog

Exactly. Brazil and China drill oil from our coasts. But we "can't"?

Posted by: by any other name at March 22, 2011 09:28 AM (H+LJc)

139 He wasn't dithering for 3 weeks.

Obambi didn't act until Ghadafy starting winning.

As long as the islamic radicals looked to be on top, he did nothing. Obama used the same strategy in the rest of North Africa and Iran (= support radical islam).

As soon as it looked like the islamic terrorists were going to lose, Hussein Satero gives them a helping hand.

Note that there is no WH outcry about the "human rights abuses" going on in Syria and Israel perpetrated by islamic terrorist.


Posted by: Mark E at March 22, 2011 09:31 AM (w5RwR)

140
You might want to put on beck, he's claiming to have a tape and you will be the "first people in America to hear this tape beside the 15 people in this room

And you can listen to it.....at the top of the next hour right after this commercial

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 09:14 AM (wuv1c)
--------------
Beck is getting as bad as Hannity wrt "Coming right up" meaning tune back in at 15 minutes before the end of the show.

Posted by: Mark E at March 22, 2011 09:33 AM (w5RwR)

141 Why is it not a big deal?
-- because congress is scared of the vote. They do not want to be on record either supporting or against the action. They are afraid.

They learned their lesson after Bush got their approval for Iraq and it bit them in the ass. Just as the Dems were terrified of the Iraq vote because they were afraid to be on the wrong side if it went well, like for Iraq I,

Congress is a bunch of cowards and the Right needs to put them on notice that they must take a position and have a vote on this war. That is their responsibility.

Posted by: nine coconuts at March 22, 2011 09:36 AM (DHNp4)

142 As if the means to surgically remove pirates on the Med aren't already entrenched from European bases.They exist for doing so in Somalia, too--how's that working out? Saying "that won't fly" doesn't change the reality.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 22, 2011 09:37 AM (B+qrE)

143 Caroline B. Glick article on America's Descent into Strategic Dementia

http://jewishworldreview.com/0311/glick032211.php3

Posted by: public service announcement at March 22, 2011 09:39 AM (Nrslf)

144 141
You might want to put on beck, he's claiming to have a tape and you will be the "first people in America to hear this tape beside the 15 people in this room
And you can listen to it.....at the top of the next hour right after this commercial

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 09:14 AM (wuv1c)

Jeebus. I've been listening. An SEIU thug planning on audio to bring down Wall Street. Beck's going to have the transcript and tape on The Blaze.

And back on the subject of Preznit Sissypants, when is the GOP going to find their balls and look to impeaching this fuckwit?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 22, 2011 09:39 AM (UOM48)

145 Impeach Barry the Barbedcocked Boob in Chief

Posted by: Insidious Sid at March 22, 2011 09:39 AM (NjXSJ)

146 Beck is getting as bad as Hannity wrt "Coming right up" meaning tune back in at 15 minutes before the end of the show.
I've got news that can save america as soon as it leaves my lips and hits your ears.....tune into my tv show tonight for the information

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 09:44 AM (wuv1c)

147 I think Biden actually likes America and Americans. He'd be a big improvement. Unfortunately his work ethic isn't sufficient to actually clean house before a campaign becomes 'necessary'.
On behalf of whom? Who cares, not even Hill wants the loss.
Impeach the POS of the USA!

Posted by: gary gulrud at March 22, 2011 09:44 AM (/g2vP)

148 Only 2 permits for US companies since the BP spill but now we give a fucking permit to Petrobras!?? What.the.fuck.
HI!!!!

Posted by: George Soros' Big Stack O'Petrobras Shares at March 22, 2011 09:45 AM (B+qrE)

149 Do the right thing for Walpin, impeach.

Posted by: You got some DeMint on your shoe at March 22, 2011 09:45 AM (F/4zf)

150 Petrobus main stockholder is.....Soros.....now you know the rest of the story.

Posted by: Meddler at March 22, 2011 09:45 AM (Ovv0o)

151 They exist for doing so in Somalia, too--how's that working out?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 22, 2011 09:37 AM (B+qrE)
It's pathetically funny that Somalia is much more of an "international threat" especially as they threaten shipping out of the Gulf, but no one has seen fit to do jack shit about it. Now, they all get hot and bothered by a guy whose been in power for 4 decades, already, has attacked the US and the West, was good buddies with the Precedent's pals, helped finance Jesse Jackson's 1984 primary campaign, and had just had intimate dealings with Britain in order to get a mass murdering terrorist scumbag let back into freedom .... I think Q'Daffy was in the running for a Trinity Church centerfold, at one point.
And these fools try to make pretend that Q'Daffy just appeared out of the aether a week ago. It reminds me of how they all hated Mubarack but loved Sadat - even though they were essentially the same kind of guy.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 22, 2011 09:45 AM (G/MYk)

152 It reminds me of how they all hated Mubarack but loved Sadat - even though they were essentially the same kind of guy.
EXACTLY the same guy.

Posted by: George Soros' Big Stack O'Petrobras Shares at March 22, 2011 09:47 AM (B+qrE)

153 Do the right thing for Walpin, impeach.

Posted by: You got some DeMint on your shoe at March 22, 2011 09:45 AM (F/4zf)
Hear, hear!Do the right thing for Arizona. Impeach.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 22, 2011 09:49 AM (G/MYk)

154 Sock off.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 22, 2011 09:49 AM (B+qrE)

155 He could be impeached, but the Democrat Senate would not remove him. So why stir up his true believers?

Posted by: kansas at March 22, 2011 09:53 AM (nNgbi)

156 "CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy
JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America"

Posted by: curious at March 22, 2011 09:57 AM (k1rwm)

157 The Media elites were SO in love
with the idea of demonstrating their open mindedness that they simply
eschewed even the simplest of requirements so they could feel good about
themselves.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 22, 2011 09:24 AM (/G5LI)
If only they were that simplistically naive. Their immediate nuke attempts of Joe The Plumber and SP prove otherwise, and the conservative media turtled.Obama was a perfect tool to beat down opposition to the Left's marxist plans because of the racism charging potential of the halfrican american.
In reality, he's like a spiffy looking balsa wood glider, intentionally constructed of lightweight material to glide over the fence and unlock the gates like a airborne Trojan Horse.

Posted by: ontherocks at March 22, 2011 09:57 AM (HBqDo)

158 Do the right thing for Wisconsin. Impeach.



Do the right thing for GM bondholders. Impeach.



Do the right thing for oil drilling. Impeach.



Do the right thing for American candidates who didn't campaig to foreigners in foreign lands. Impeach.



Do the right thing for American Presidential candidates who didn't accept anonymous campaign contributions. Impeach.



Do the right thing for Commanders-in-Chief who didn't promise federal
jobs to individuals in order to pull out of Democrat primaries.
Impeach.



And the list just goes on and on.

And let's not forget in all this that the Indonesian and his supporters SERIOUSLY forwarded the idea that he needed to take office early, extra-Constitutionally some time in December, because Barky's 84 IQ points were so integral to the health of our nation.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 22, 2011 09:59 AM (G/MYk)

159 Only this is far worse than merely avoiding Congress on Yucca Mountain, offshore drilling, net neutrality, card check, and cap and trade.
There is a federal hearing on what Obama/Reid did to Yucca this morning. The judge, btw, is a Reagan appointee.

Posted by: dagny at March 22, 2011 10:07 AM (pOVW6)

160 So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now...
It's just about sex.
It's none of our business.
Can't we just move on?

Posted by: Haiku Guy at March 22, 2011 10:07 AM (J6F73)

161 president(elected) of the Harvard Law Review commits us into an allegiance with the UN and the Arab League(but i repeat myself) and Europe to go to war with a country that hasn't directly attacked or provoked us. once again, this sworn protector of the Constitution decides to enter a war on the behest of foreign nations without consulting congress. to be clear, the same group of people who are now aligned against Gaddafi are the same ones who would be aligned against Israel. still, i don't quite understand. perhaps to truly comprehend this fully, i need a J.D. in Kenyan or Zimbabwe Law or whatever Harvard is bestowing unto their magna cum laude legal scholars these days.

Posted by: befuddled at March 22, 2011 10:08 AM (xJU23)

162 simplified, " I WON "

Posted by: willow at March 22, 2011 10:15 AM (h+qn8)

163 Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:07 AM (penCf)
momma- I am going to register on that website and make fun of those stupid, silly women. Do you think that's for real? I honestly read every comment and I can't believe it isn't fake.

Posted by: jewells45 at March 22, 2011 10:17 AM (l/N7H)

164 Presidents have for the past 40 years or so always gotten Congressional
authorization for war action prior to or at least contemporaneously
with military action.

Exactly, just like Grenada, Panama, Libya 1986, The first entrance into Somalia and the Air war against Serbia? Just like those, Gabe? Or Truman and Korea?

We need to reign in Presidential use of the War Power Act but Obama is not outside of what every President has done, with the exception of Iraq (where Congress voted Present), so it seems a little hypocritical.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at March 22, 2011 10:18 AM (y3wz3)

165 Is OK if a Black (Semi-Christian) Man kills Muslims in the name of Freedombut not a White Christian Man ???

Posted by: Frank Carter at March 22, 2011 10:20 AM (By4wu)

166 even further simplified, "You're not the boss of Me"

Posted by: Obama to congress at March 22, 2011 10:20 AM (h+qn8)

167 "you guys just don't understand how important it was to decide what to wear to Rio, think I had time to mess with congress, or prepare the American People? Be grateful You have Me as Your President", Barak H. Obama.

Posted by: Obama to congress at March 22, 2011 10:24 AM (h+qn8)

168 104 Oh, and with all due respect, anyone who holds hope that this president will be held accountable for the gawdawful mess he's created is living a fantasy.
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at March 22, 2011 09:06 AM (vbh31)
right, they will blame us for noticing. btw racist

Posted by: Obama to congress at March 22, 2011 10:28 AM (h+qn8)

169 Since when do conservatives give a shit about the unconstitutional War Powers Act? Instead of reflexively accepting the liberal framing of the Seperation of Powers issue because it's convenient in this particular instance, how 'bout we declare victory and move on?

Posted by: Schreiber at March 22, 2011 10:30 AM (HrAKc)

170 the same restrictions imposed on those aligned with dropping bombs on Libya today will have the same restraints against dropping bombs on Israel tomorrow. let's just call this the Armageddon clause of the War Powers Act.

2012: He Won. Get your as* to the bomb shelter.

Posted by: befuddled at March 22, 2011 10:33 AM (xJU23)

171 Great post, Gabe! Wow.

Posted by: runningrn at March 22, 2011 10:35 AM (ihSHD)

172 Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 08:07 AM (penCf)
momma- I am going to register on that website and make
fun of those stupid, silly women. Do you think that's for real? I
honestly read every comment and I can't believe it isn't fake.

Posted by: jewells45 at March 22, 2011 10:17 AM (l/N7H)

Oh no, it's real. She is even publishing a book about O (I think). She actually says one day she was sitting AT HOME when a letter was shoved under the door. Turns out it was a letter from Mrs. O

Posted by: momma at March 22, 2011 11:04 AM (penCf)

173 Impeach Obama, Fail, then lose the election in 2012 (gonna happen anyway, but that would make it a landside.) Run Palin lose 2012. Run acceptable GOP candidate who is boring lose 2012. The MSM has fucked us over.

I think we just give Obama more rope to hang himself. Bring up his lack of leadership。 Let him screw up some more. People notice that stuff.

Also, I cut the dude a little slack on Libya. He is always delaying decision and dithering. Clinton and France forced him to man up and at least DO something. It also means he's on the line for his original "Qadafi must go." stuff.
sorry to be so depressing.

Posted by: sexypig at March 22, 2011 11:06 AM (tsSH+)

174 So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.

Nowhere in the constitution is megalomania mentioned. Nyah nyah.

Posted by: Barry the Constitional Scholar at March 22, 2011 11:07 AM (xs5wK)

175 RRRAAAAWWWKKK IMPEACH BARACK OBAMA,IMPEACH JOE BIDEN,IMPEACH HILLARY CLINTON,IMPEACH ERIC HOLDER RRRAAAAAWWWWKKKK

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 22, 2011 11:11 AM (vA9ld)

176 It's not war-war.

Posted by: whoopi at March 22, 2011 11:21 AM (l5dj7)

177 Clinton and France forced him to man up and at least
DO something.

Posted by: sexypig at March 22, 2011 11:06 AM (tsSH+)
Do something about what? Q'Daffy shooting his subjects? Who cares? Protection of foreign citizens is not one of the charges of the US government. Bush was wrong in ever appealing to it for Iraq - where it was secondary - and Obama is way wrong for claiming that it is a reason for the US to be launched into war without any Congressional action, at all. Bush went to Congress every time. He stupidly went to the UN, too, but that was a general Bush family malady that forced that.Our interests in Libya extend no further than the oil fields. We should take and secure them. Libyan citizens are not our problem and not for the US government to decide (through the Executive branch by fiat, at that) to use the US military to defend. There's a big problem with the concept of sovereignty, here. Our government is not Obama's plaything. And our military is most certainly not, which is why the whole "natural born citizen" thing was put into the Constitution, to begin with. As John Jay wrote in his July 1787 letter to George Washington:



New-York, 25th July, 1787.

Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of
foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief
of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on
any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay


Putting the US military at the beck and call of foreign interests (especially stupid foreign interests, such as the UN and France) seems to pretty much be exactly what Jay was worried about. Funny that.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 22, 2011 11:23 AM (G/MYk)

178 Bringing impeachment proceedings against Allah's Only Begotten Son would be a clear violation of that bedrock and Holy Constitutional principle of Separation of Church and State.

Posted by: Sharkman at March 22, 2011 11:37 AM (vXr7p)

179 Wasn't that letter after the fact?

FWIW, the War Powers Act gives him 48 hours to report to the House speaker and Senate president pro tem explaining the action.

*IF* the only excuse he used is some UN based thing, then he would be in violation of the WPA section detailing the conditions under which a president can act unilaterally.

If no additional American based excuse was presented, then he violated the WPA.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 22, 2011 11:55 AM (CEeMb)

180 I don't think the War Powers Act is actually constitutional, since the US Constitution gives the president power to control the army and doesn't mention anything about when and how he can use it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 22, 2011 11:57 AM (61b7k)

181 We are operating under the Smart Powers Act.

Posted by: Jay Carnie - Gibbels disciple at March 22, 2011 12:07 PM (G/MYk)

182 Impeachment? Never heard of it.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at March 22, 2011 12:08 PM (vKUhG)

183 Hey, this president has no experience, so we need to let him learn this stuff on the job, like how maybe you can't sit around and make speeches about how Kaddafy has to go, but then hem and haw.

Sometimes any decision is better than no decision. And I mean that as in deciding forcefully to NOT intervene would be okay too.

Actually, it looks like Obama is straddling even now...he's like a Taoist - inaction is action and action is inaction.

Posted by: sexypig at March 22, 2011 12:20 PM (tsSH+)

184 Waging war in violation of the U.S. Constitution sounds like a High Crime to me. So I'd like someone to explain to me why we shouldn't be talking about impeachment right now.
We shouldn't be talking about impeachment because impeachment takes a super majority in the U.S. Senate and it would be a waste of time because the U.S. Senate is in Democrat hands.

Posted by: Speller at March 22, 2011 12:44 PM (J74Py)

185 "Reagan did NOT seek Congressional approval before air raiding Libya in
1986."

Libya didn't seek Congressional approval to bomb that disco in Berlin, either. Na und?

Posted by: Xrlq at March 22, 2011 01:15 PM (2jGX1)

186 Presidents didn't seek congressional permission to attack Grenada or Panama either. They don't need to under the constitution.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 22, 2011 01:20 PM (61b7k)

187 Karl Rove is already all over Fox assuring Prince Barky that the GOP supports his move in Libya. Yes he should have consulted first, but if he had, the GOP would have joined the Dems in overwhelmingly approving. Only the far left would vote No.

Posted by: snort! at March 22, 2011 01:27 PM (K/USr)

188 In as much as i hate to admit it, I think our procrastinator-in- chief may have actually been legal here. Accroding to the war powers resolution (1973) the president must inform congress with 48hrs of commiting troops. I think he did this (waited the full 48 of course)

Posted by: Ben at March 22, 2011 01:46 PM (qMF+b)

189 Gabe, you're wrong about the there being only one intervention without prior Congressional approval in the last 40 years. You're forgetting Grenada, which Reagan invaded against the wishes of a hostile Congress on the pretext that American students were in danger. (As all recent presidents have, Reagan abided by the War Powers act while refusing to recognize its Constitutional legitimacy. Thus his rationale for invasion was put forward as"consistent with" the War Powers Act, while denying that he was acting "under" the Act. Rather, he was exercising his powers under the Constitution.)
Obama could have easily used the same "protecting Americans"loophole, jumping in to protect American citizens and diplomats (at least early on, while they were still there). Instead, he adverts to a U.N. security council resolution, together with a broad claim that regional instability threatens American interests, without, as you note, even specifying how.
By not even going through the motions, he probably is violating the law, but that still leaves the question of his powers under the Constitution. Certainly the President does have some independent power to take emergency action without prior approval, and there is nothing Congress can do to limit this power. Congress can't change the Constitution. And Obama's action here pretty clearly would fall under any basic emergency power, if for no other reason than what this post describes: Obama's fecklessness, which turned what could have been a planned action into a last second lurch.

Posted by: Alec Rawls at March 22, 2011 01:52 PM (kTTUz)

190 Posted by: Alec Rawls at March 22, 2011 01:52 PM (kTTUz)

No President since Nixon has been willing to challenge it for the simple reason that most people think it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Most think that the President does have the power to commit troops for short duration acts of defense of American people. But that is given in the act itself which has the 60 day window. What they have been scared of is losing the 60 day window entirely.

Reagan did have a good damn reason for going into Grenada and it wasn't just the American kids there in college. It was to curb outright Cuban adventurism which was clearly in U.S. strategic interests.

Note that those interests were not so clear in Nicaragua and Reagan did not send troops. That is the same case here. The U.S. has no interests in this fight and does not belong there. In any case Reagan was in Grenada and out within the 60 day window.

Clinton is still not out of Bosnia.

Posted by: Vic at March 22, 2011 02:11 PM (M9Ie6)

191 Thanks for the article Gabe, I'm gonna write my congressman to hear what his thoughts are on the situation.

Posted by: Draki at March 22, 2011 02:28 PM (5Cbz0)

192 As much as I agree, Obama's actions and statements indicate he intends to comply with the War Powers Act without acknowledging he's doing so. That's why he keeps stressing he's turning this over to the coalition presumably be totally disengaged in less than the 60 days set forth in the War Powers Act. Kind of ironic considering all his preceding bluster - but what's new?

Posted by: crazy at March 22, 2011 07:13 PM (L7dA+)

193 http://sexyswisswatches.com
http://fashionmonkey.org
http://toplaptoponline.com
http://fashionmimic.wordpress.com
http://xiaopaitom.wordpress.com
http://seogyy.wordpress.com
http://seobuuby.wordpress.com
http://youneedbuy.wordpress.com
http://tomsmithblog.wordpress.com
http://fashiontomsmith.blogspot.com
http://seogyy.blogspot.com
http://helpfulmust.blogspot.com
http://youneedbuy.blogspot.com

Posted by: cheap replica watches at March 23, 2011 12:07 AM (WrMt1)

194 buy windows 7 serial key buy Norton serial key CD Keys ARMA II CD Key Call of Duty CD Key Champions Online CD Key Company of Heroes CD Key Colin McRae: DiRT 2 CD Key Command Conquer CD Key Crysis : Warhead CD Key Dawn of War 2 CD Key Dead Space CD Key Fallout III CD Key Just Cause CD Key Mass Effect 2 CD Key Silent Hunter 5 CD Key Street Fighter IV CD Key The Settlers 7 CD Key The Sim 3 CD Key Wolfenstein CD Key GTA IV CD Key Guild Wars CD Key Left 4 Dead CD Key NFS CD Key The Godfather II CD Key Titan Quest CD Key XBOX 360 Points RUSE CD Key F1 2010 CD Key Two Worlds 2 CD Key Star Trek Online CD Key Spore CD Key Nail'd CD Key Far Cry 3 CD Key Dungeons CD Key Dragon Age CD Key Divinity 2 CD Key Dead Space 2 CD Key Crysis 2 CD Key Create CD Key Cities XL 2011 CD Key HomeFront CD Key Shogun 2 Total War CD Key

Posted by: buy windows 7 key at March 23, 2011 02:23 AM (eLfId)

195 tera gold tera power leveling tera account tera accounts tera gold tera time card tera gold tera power leveling tera account tera accounts Tera CD Key Tera Gold Rift gold Rift cd key Rift power leveling Rift account blade and soul gold blade and soul cd key blade soul cd key blade soul gold blade soul power leveling blade and soul power leveling blade and soul account blade soul account

Posted by: phoenix85 at March 23, 2011 06:10 AM (oRg9W)

196 Nike Air Max
Air Jordan Sale
Air Jordan Shoes
Cheap MBT Shoes
Vibram FiveFingers

Posted by: air jordan sale at March 23, 2011 10:08 AM (FimEn)

197 IMPEACH OBAMA,IMPEACH OBAMA,IMPEACH OBAMA RRRRAAAWWWWKKKK

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 24, 2011 03:00 PM (vA9ld)

198 I like your article.Welcome to Fake Oakleys in our Oakleys Sunglasses online shop.All Replica Oakleys in Discounted Oakley Sunglasses!

Posted by: replica oakleys at March 29, 2011 02:01 AM (ee56/)

199 Welcome to discount mac cosmetics in our mac cosmetics wholesale.All wholesale mac cosmetics online are discount mac cosmetics!Click us:mac cosmetics outlet online. Welcome to our Blog : discount mac cosmetics.

Posted by: discount mac cosmetics at March 29, 2011 02:03 AM (ee56/)

200 Wow, all you jackoffs support Kaddaffi, huh? Not surprising, seeing how you're all Nazis at heart. Seig heil, douchebags!

Posted by: Jake Havechek at March 31, 2011 08:29 AM (R7ZHx)

201 Squirrel, coated in flour, pan fried, then braised with a little water –
remove the squirrel, add cream or milk for gravy – over biscuits or
grits – what a breakfast!

Posted by: Jake Havechek at March 31, 2011 08:56 AM (R7ZHx)

202 I remember when the impeachment process went on with Clinton.
It seems like that was more like a slap on the hand. Charges of treason are more appropriate. In regard to the war powers act, this was the reason the leftist were so outraged with Bush. Something has to be done quickly to save our country.
The man should be arrested immediately as he achieved his position illegally as he misrepresented him self as a legal candidate for president. NOT A US CITIZEN
In the 1st place. Get rid of it.

Posted by: outraged at April 01, 2011 11:28 AM (v8gHC)

203 My mistake, someone has to be a citizen of a country in order to be able to commit
Treason. Send him to the Hague in shackles to answer for war crimes. He is so in favor of the international oversight. Just make sure the US reserves the right to remand him on Criminal charges for fraud etc. if necessary.

Posted by: outraged at April 01, 2011 12:20 PM (bqBOj)

204 herve leger Herve Leger Fashion originates from France, the romantic united states. So, its obvious that this Herve Leger is generally romantic along with fantastic, also. If you love to go by some party inside your spare time period but stillherve leger sale can purchase a excellent dress to travel with, Herve leger is your best decision. Herve Leger skirt place the usual elements therefore to their maker connected with style, they’re beautiful and classy, reflect the contours connected with women’s physiques perfectly.herve leger dressesIf you are searching for beautiful dress, why don’t you possess the try? Colorful Herve leger bandage offer you colorful life. Herve leger is renowned for a lot of people as well as New Herve Leger Apparel is the long-awaited apparel. This like dress is rather appreciated by simply women across the world. You’Herve Leger Bandage dresses d consider what sort of one precise element a person wouldn’t should concern on your own with Herve legerherve leger replica dress will be possessing any of your respective full entire body components drop out, which we all inadvertently spied peeking Herve Leger fake outside her tangerine frock because we went about getting prior Enjoyment Bryant’s from the bandage dress show that morning. Your lady, appropriately sufficient, seemed so you can get referring to be able to wine from the time. The designers experimented with shape,cheap Herve Leger no simple feat offered the challenges of working from the bandage system, but the ideas ended up executed beautifully comprising subtly ruffled divisions of textile grazing the hips along with textured embellishments. Women always talk about fashion,herve leger dresses sale women is the first to know the fashion tide. Because of the decoration of women, life is so attractive and colorful. We all know summer is a season for women. In summer, women can wear various clothes: T-shirt, pants, skirts and so on. When motioning dresses, women will think of Herve Leger immediately. Why Herve Leger is so attractive to women? Reasons are various.This article is posted byherve leger store boffee

Posted by: bandagedressherveleger at July 12, 2011 11:13 PM (f1SCw)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.149 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.1246 seconds, 212 records returned.
Page size 129 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat