Vid at the link. Here's the quote:

“So, when you hear folks saying ‘Well, the president shouldn’t want massive job killing tax increases when the economy is this weak.’ Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.”(emphasis added)

Remember when Obama said we must not raise taxes during a recession? Good times, good times.

Posted by: Ace at 01:49 PM | Comments (150)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Since people are talking about it.

Panel is Bob Beckel (grotesque toad whoremonger), Howard Deutsch (f'n' blockheaded blustering jagoff) Oh it's Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, Greg Gutfeld, and some conservative-tilting brunette who looks a little like Alysso Milano.

What? Am I dreaming or has Greg Gutfeld now made five hooker jokes directly to Beckel's face?

Is this normal? Do people bring this up with him?

Because, well, five hooker jokes.

Six. He just dropped a mistress joke. "Let me explain this to Bob. Your government isn't your mom and dad, it's like your mistress..."

Posted by: Ace at 01:29 PM | Comments (154)
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Brian Faughnan.

Well, that's interesting.

Panetta made his remarks during his his inaugural visit to Iraq as Pentagon chief. Speaking to about 100 soldiers at Camp Victory, the largest U.S. military installation in Baghdad, he said his primary goal as defense secretary was to defeat al-Qaeda worldwide.

“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,” Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.”

His statement echoed previous comments made by President George W. Bush and members of his administration, who tried to tie Saddam HusseinÂ’s government to al-Qaeda. But it put Panetta at odds with President Obama, the 9/11 Commission and other independent experts, who have said there is no evidence al-Qaeda had a presence in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Afterward, pressed by reporters to elaborate, Panetta said: “I wasn’t saying, you know, the invasion — or going into the issues or the justification of that. It was more the fact that we really had to deal with al-Qaeda here, they developed a presence here and that tied in.”

Honestly, what Panetta meant is kind of muddled.

Still it's fun to see that the Post is still misrepresenting what Bush said. My understanding of Bush's argument was that after the 9/11 attacks we couldn't simply be passive and hope to break up plots but had to go after sponsors of terrorism before they could launch attacks. In short, we'd go on the offensive and not simply retaliate after the fact. The Democrats and the media always misrepresented that as saying we were going after the sponsors of the actual 9/11 attacks (leave the issue of connections between Saddam and al Qaeda aside for the moment).

I always viewed Iraq more about changing the terms of the fight in the Mideast. Al Qaeda was offering a vision for how Muslims should live, not only in accordance with strict Islamic rule but also in confrontation with the West. For the most part the US had been offering support for despots in the region (think Egypt and Saudi Arabia). By getting rid of Saddam we'd be able to create a demonstration project as it were and offer an alternative path for the region. Oh and we'd be getting rid of a monster who also posed a major security threat to a vital part of the world in the process.

Whatever Panetta meant, it's fun to see a Democrat on the receiving end of the media's narrative protection effort for a change.

Also: Panetta has a message for the Iraqi government on extending the US military presence, "Dammit, make a decision."

Mr. Panetta commended the Iraqis and the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the hard work of fostering democratic institutions since the fall of longtime dictator Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, Mr. Panetta said the sometimes slow-moving decision-making process in Iraq can be "frustrating" for the U.S., which has also been waiting for the appointment of a new Iraqi defense minister.

"I'd like things to move a lot faster here, frankly, in terms of the decision-making process. I'd like them to make the decision, you know: Do they want us to stay? Don't they want us to stay? Do they want to have, you know, a minister of defense or don't they want to get a minister of defense?" Mr. Panetta said. "But dammit, make a decision."

I kind of like this guy. Well, at least until he starts doing Obama's bidding and slashes the defense budget.

Posted by: DrewM at 11:08 AM | Comments (79)
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

I mean the idiot who landed the Scoop of the Century, that Paul Ryan had a glass of expensive wine.

Couple of points: The left's bad behavior is, to them, a feature, not a bug. Consider that Citizen Leftists do this sort of thing a lot -- remember that idiot woman who dropped dime on the Bush Twins for having a margarita at a restaurant when they were only aged 20?

This is "ends justify the means" stuff. Most people would never even consider this sort of harassing, totalitarian "We will drive you into hiding" bullshit. For the left, it's common practice.

They hate. Their whole personas are defined by unreasoning, unceasing, unhinged hatred. Hatred defines them. Hatred gives them purpose.

When I get bitchy about unhinged anger on demonstration in the comments, it's because this is so foul and ugly, and no, it doesn't look any better when we do it. And I don't think this helps them.

It would be nice to do to them what they do to us -- and it might even be a good tit-for-tat tactic -- but it's all so vile.

The other point about this drunken lunatic incompetent is that is she had a brain-cell working that wasn't drenched in her own bottle of high-priced ($80 per bottle) wine, she would have realized she could possibly have had a real story if she just kept her shit together.

Consider: Paul Ryan wound up paying for one of the two bottles of wine, despite having only one glass. But this was, of course, after this soused bint and her half-a-man husband "confronted" them by yelling at them as they tried to have a meal in a restaurant.

Now, if Ryan had not been alerted that he was being watched by the left's freelance ad hoc Legion of Spies, would he have paid? He says he didn't even know what the wine cost, so likely this was a pair of economists who were fans of his trying to impress him; who knows, if he hadn't had been confronted, maybe he would have just laid down some cash for what he figured his meal cost.

In other words, maybe he would not have wound up with evidence he had paid in the form of his credit card receipt. And then, there actually might have been a story.

So: This woman was drunk, vile, and incompetent. If only she had been able to restrain her unreasoning, unquenchable hatred, perhaps if she were capable of being rational and cool, she could have avoided her little psychosexual cartharsis of confronting the guy she secretly wishes to have sex with, and maybe he wouldn't have put it on his credit card, and then maybe she'd have an actual story -- Paul Ryan drinks $700 in wine and illegally permits "friends" to pick up the check.

Could have happened! We have no way of knowing now, as Professor Drinky McCapillaryBurst tipped off her surveillance subject to the fact she was keeping a (googly, alcohol-bouyed) eye on him.

But she was too drunk, stupid, and emotionally florid to play that kind of cool let's-see-where-this-goes game. She needed to make a scene (drunks always do) and so she did.

Oh but speaking of invasions of privacy:

So, obviously, she's angry about the obvious: God didn't love me enough to make me pretty.

But she's also probably pretty angry that she's an idiot who's not exactly setting the world on fire with the beauty of her brain, either.

For example, Susan Feinberg, Super-Economist teaches a class called "Love & Money," about life-management skills, i.e., she teaches college-level kids to watch about credit card debt and not to tank their credit rating).

. Feinberg is also a personal finance enthusiast and teaches “Love and Money,” a course designed to teach Rutgers undergraduates personal finance and life management skills.

So, you know, the heavy stuff they give out Nobel Prizes for.

She says "I'm an economist!" so much in that stupid TPM "scoop" that it really sounds more like she's trying to convince herself more than the reader.

But that's not all. As the US was about to enter a severe recession in late 2008, here was this snaggle-tooted version of Suze Orman without the charisma or accomplishment offering up her sage prognostications on ... the severe recession she didn't anticipate would come to pass.

How do you assess the current state of the economy? What are the chances of a steep and severe downturn?

I think the economy is in pretty tough shape. Housing and other asset prices have fallen sharply, wages for middle-income people have stagnated while food and energy prices have increased considerably, unemployment is on the rise, credit has dried up, and most indices of consumer confidence and industrial activity are down. To make matters worse, state budgets and employment lag behind the business cycle. So even after things get better at the national level, weÂ’re likely to see both employment and state spending continue to decline.

I rate the chance of a steep, severe downturn as fairly low, but I am concerned about the possibility of stagnation, of the sort that gripped Japan in the 1990s.

You know what her failing career really needs? More drunk & disorderly behavior at restaurants.

Is This a Professional CV Website Page, Or Is This MySpace? You be the judge.

Professionals usually don't use all caps and exclamation points.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (509)
Post contains 937 words, total size 6 kb.

I've become convinced that Palin isn't running, based on things she's been saying for a couple of weeks. I'm less confident of another belief -- that she's currently thinking about endorsing Governor Rick Perry -- but I think she's telegraphing that, too.

Most important was this series of quotes collected by Robert Costa at picnic to celebrate the release of The Undefeated.

Yet when I spoke with Palin, in a quiet conversation before she departed, she told me that all of the presidential chatter misses the point. She said that she enjoys being part of the national political conversation, but the idea that she needed to be in office to influence things is bunk.

“Being a private citizen, I think I am a good example for others to show that you don’t have to have a title, you don’t have to hold national or statewide office in order to effect positive change and make a difference,” she said. “The documentary encapsulates that — to be involved for the right reasons and challenge the status quo.”

But if Palin can stir whole towns to turn out for a film premiere, why not try to generate similar levels of enthusiasm for public policy as a candidate? “As a private citizen, you can effect change, too,” she replied with a smile. With that, she and her husband, Todd, jumped into a waiting sport-utility vehicle and zoomed away.

Perhaps this is just deflection, keeping her plans secret from a reporter. But to me, her stating multiple times that she can have a huge impact on politics as a "private citizen" is telegraphing that that is her current plan.

Palin got a lot of notice for her Obama-as-Sugar-Daddy FaceBook post. It's a good attack. I thought it was interesting that she seems to slight Bachmann. Since Bachmann was rapidly rising when she wrote this a few days ago (Bachmann is all-but-confirmed as the front runner), it's notable that she doesn't tailor her description of a good replacement president in such a way as to include Bachmann as a contender.

s we approach 2012, there are important lessons we can learn from all of this. First, we should never entrust the White House to a far-left ideologue who has no appreciation or even understanding of the free market and limited government principles that made this country economically strong. Second, the office of the presidency is too important for on-the-job training. It requires a strong chief executive who has been entrusted with real authority in the past and has achieved a proven track record of positive measurable accomplishments. Leaders are expected to give good speeches, but leadership is so much more than oratory. Real leadership requires deeds even more than words. It means taking on the problems no one else wants to tackle. It means providing vision and guidance, inspiring people to action, bringing everyone to the table, and with a servant's heart dedicating oneself to striking agreements that keep faith with our Constitution and with the ordinary citizens who entrusted you with power. It means bucking the status quo, fighting the corrupt powers that be, serving the common good, and leaving the country better than you found it. Most of us donÂ’t see a lot of that real leadership in D.C., and itÂ’s profoundly disappointing.

True enough, she could be speaking of her own credentials there, but if you (as I do) take her "private citizen" quotes to indicate her plans are to continue on as a private citizen, then the question becomes, "Which executive with experience and accomplishments is she thinking of?"

I suppose it could be Pawlenty. But I think she is thinking about Perry. After all, she says "thank goodness the field is not yet set."

Asked what was to be made of the fact that so many Republicans were looking beyond the field of declared candidates to people like herself, and Govs. Rick Perry and Chris Christie, Palin said, “It suggests that the field is not set. Thank goodness the field is not yet set. I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”

Of course she also states that it's her belief that she can beat Obama herself. She also goes on to say multiple people can beat him, and that there are good, qualified candidates in the race.

Going back to an old interview on Fox, she said one of the scenarios in which she'd run is if there wasn't a good strong conservative candidate in the race. It seems that that scenario is not in operation (per this new interview). Of course, I don't think she said that would be the only scenario in which she'd run.

Posted by: Ace at 09:38 AM | Comments (217)
Post contains 814 words, total size 5 kb.

Yeah, you said it, buddy.

Wait, you said that?

Another great vid from Morgen of Verum Serum.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:58 AM | Comments (160)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Galrahn of Information Dissemination.

How do you say Dien Bien Phu in Arabic?

France's pivot to diplomacy was only underlined this morning when Qaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam, was quoted in the Algerian newspaper El Khabar as saying that the Qaddafi regime was negotiating with France and not the rebels. Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero has denied any direct negotiations with Libyan officials but acknowledged that "we pass messages through the rebel council (TNC) and our allies." France is also distancing itself a bit from Longuet's statements yesterday. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe clarified that NATO still needed to "keep up the military pressure" on Qaddafi and Valero noted that "any political solution must begin with Qaddafi's withdrawal from power and abandonment of any political role." Juppe added, however, that France is simultaneously working to broker a political solution based on a genuine ceasefire and left open the possibility that Qaddafi could cede power but remain in Libya.

What explains the U.S./France role reversal on Libya? Three months of air strikes "have cost billions of dollars and failed to produce the swift outcome its backers had expected," Reuters explains, and "cracks are emerging inside the NATO alliance." An increasingly impatient France is growing "concerned about the mounting cost of the military campaign and the prospect of it running on into the start of a 2012 election campaign."

So after going to war (yes, that's what it is) because France badgered us into it, we might get left holding the bag? Who could have seen that coming?

I'd say that the odds are better than 50/50 that before this is all over France surrenders to Libya and cedes some territory to it.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:32 AM | Comments (110)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Gotta give myself props and note I pointed this out last week. Much more detailed analysis here.

Now, think about how these two approaches relate to what we’re hearing about the debt-ceiling talks. Simply put, President Obama has offered what amounts to his own budget proposal from earlier this year (as amended by his April speech) and called it a big bipartisan deal. But what is bipartisan about it? What it is in the “big” deal outline that was in the Republican budget but not in Obama’s budget? Nothing.

In effect, Republicans are being asked to accept several of the policies their budget took to be counterproductive (like reinforcing the fee-for-service model of health-care entitlements and increasing the tax burden on a struggling economy), to abide the implementation of Obamacare (which would be taken for granted and untouched in what purports to be a major long-term budget deal), and to settle for the Democratic version of tax reform and discretionary cuts. The Democrats, meanwhile, are being asked to settle for ObamaÂ’s budget and would be made to accept none of what they take to be counterproductive Republican proposals. Sounds like a great bi-partisan deal, doesnÂ’t it?

Yuval Levin's idea is that a genuine compromise would involve bits from both the Republican budget and Obama talking points, and be fairly small-scale (around $2 trillion in deficit reduction). And that would get us to the election, where we could demand the public resolve this dispute.

Posted by: Ace at 08:32 AM | Comments (63)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

What's this 3 or 4 in the last two weeks?

Place your bets now on the designated Enemy of the Day! Will he triple down on "Corporate Jet Owners" or will it be someone new?

The big Democratic spin is the split between Boehner and Cantor. Now, it may be accurate but when it's pretty much coming from liberals like Ezra Klein and Politico, I take it with a grain of salt. Even if some unnamed Republicans say it there are a lot of agendas in play. It's hard to know from a distance what's going on with this inside baseball stuff. Remember, Democrats always love the Republican or conservative who can help them hurt other Republicans or conservatives (like when they pine for the good old days of sane Republicans like Ronald Reagan).

Personally, I don't mind if there's a tension between them. It can help get a good deal.

As for a deal, we need to consider if we are simply saying no or trying to improve things. As I said in a thread over the weekend,

I don't mind Boehner making a deal. The standard is whether or not it's a good deal. Making the right deal is good politics, good policy and oh yeah, the right thing for the country (we're conservatives, we're supposed to care about that and even put it above our own good, right?).

We can't kill Obama for not leading while urging our guys to adopt that model as well (I guess we can, it's just stupid).

Again...it's not deal per se that bother me, it's bad ones. We should be smart enough to know the difference.

The really interesting thing will be to see how any deal passes the House. Can Boehner/Cantor deliver 218 or will they have to get some Democratic votes. I don't see how or why Democrats would offer up any help. Debt increases are often passed on party line votes with the majority having to suck it up.

I think Republicans are going to want it passed by GOP votes. If not, the Republicans who vote with Democrats to do it, will be primaried out in a heartbeat.

Oh one other thing...Democrats and the MFM (BIRM) keep saying that Obama is willing to hit entitlements but Republicans won't raise taxes. What proof is there that entitlements are on the table in a serious way? Obama's only public "plan" was a few talking points in a speech the CBO says is unscorable.

They are simply letting Obama say things without asking for any specifics. Again.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:00 AM | Comments (569)
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

Above The Post Update:

The attack is over.

U.S. embassy official tells Reuters attackers have left embassy complex, Syrian security response "slow and insufficiant"

Original Post:
I'm going to guess Obama won't be able to publicly ignore Syria for much longer.

Reuters reports that protesters loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad have broken into the U.S. embassy compound in Damascus, according to diplomats in the capital city.

Reuters reports that French Embassy guards have fired live ammunition on the protesters to stop the attack on the U.S. Embassy.

I have to admit, I wasn't thrilled when Obama decided to send an ambassador to Syria after Bush had left the post vacant for a few years in protest of the Assad regimes behavior. Honestly though, I like the cut of Ambassador Ford's jib.

Ford took an unauthorized visit to the town of Hamma and then went on facebook (yes, sounds lame but that's where the anti-government activist types are) to call out the regime.

The people in Hama have been demonstrating peacefully for weeks. Yes, there is a general strike, but what caused it? The government security measures that killed protesters in Hama. In addition, the government began arresting people at night and without any kind of judicial warrant. Assad had promised in his last speech that there would be no more arrests without judicial process. Families in Hama told me of repeated cases where this was not the reality. And I saw no signs of armed gangs anywhere – not at any of the civilian street barricades we passed.

Hama and the Syrian crisis is not about the U.S. at all. This is a crisis the Syrian people are in the process of solving. It is a crisis about dignity, human rights, and the rule of law. We regret the loss of life of all Syrians killed, civilians and security members both, and hope that the Syrian people will be able to find their way out of this crisis soon. Respect for basic human rights is a key element of the solution.

Now Obama needs to step up (stop laughing or is that crying?) and say the US no longer views the Assad regime as an agent of change (a laughable proposition Obama offered up in his Mideast speech in May) but rather as a rogue regime that, like Gadaffi, has lost all legitimacy and has to go.

*I updated the headline since it's not clear the attackers got the embassy building itself.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:37 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.