A bipartisan group of ten. Alas, they're letting Kucinich give out quotes.

“With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who led the 10-member anti-war coalition with Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

They specifically challenge this idea that a foreign treaty organization may substitute for Congress in the war-declaration procedure, a bad idea that was dumb when it was first floated, what? In 1950? In 1946? There was a debate on this in Congress, during the United Nations creation/treaty discussion, as to whether US troops would come with their Declarations of War pre-authorized by creation of a UN now authorized to command them into war.

Seemed absurd then, as it seems absurd now. If there is any sort of "pre-authorization" it would need to be explicit. Congress would have to specifically authorize the President to use troops whenever the UN, or NATO, or SEATO, or UNESCO, or whoever called us into war.

And just because some Congressmen thought this is what the terms of the UN treaty meant does not mean their opinion -- just an opinion, absent the force of law, through the normal legislative process -- means diddly-squat.

A foreign organization, even one heavily influenced by the US executive branch, cannot satisfy the Constitution's requirement, which makes no mention of any body apart from Congress, in declaring war.

Oh You Dirty Hypocritical Flip-Flopping Jackass: Guess who's now worried about "mixed messages" coming from Congress, about a war limited kinetic action?

You guessed it, chief.

Carney also issued a warning, saying it is "important for Congress not to send mixed signals about a goalÂ… we all share."

They told me if I voted for McCain, I'd see a lawless executive that flouted the Constitution and denigrated Congress' power to authorize war, based upon a theory of sending "mixed messages" to hostile regimes, and they were right!

Oh wait, you wuz serious wit' dat?

H/t to instapundit, of course.

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (152)
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

Meh. I've been trying to avoid this subject.

“I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied. He lied to the public and the press for more than a week,” she said. “If he lied about this, I can’t have much faith in him about anything else.”

Although he spoke often about his "package," Ginger Lee says she never reciprocated with lewdness.

Before you say that's BS -- she really doesn't have a terribly strong reason to lie. She's a porn actress. She doesn't have a reputation for sexual modesty to protect.

If she were telling the truth -- let's say -- that indicates this is a more serious problem than we imagined, and, who knows, it's possible that several of his correspondents here were true-blue innocent-as-lambs victims.

Possible.

Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

Much like the Constitution, Obama's accounting of himself is a living, breathing document, subject to the influence of changing political realities and social mores, and, of course, European law. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (200)
Post contains 87 words, total size 2 kb.

Hm! No wonder everyone was so eager to build the narrative of a right-wing shooter!

If the gun itself was the product of a left-wing administration's botched plan (which I still do not understand the goal of), then damnit, we're going to need the hand holding to be right-wing, for "balance."

Now, Holder has claimed he knew nothing of this operation.

Do these emails refresh the witness' recollection?

“Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we…are doing what they envisioned the Southwest Border Grouops doing. It may sound cheesy but we are ‘The tip of the ATF spear’ when it comes to Southwest Border Firearms Trafficking,” Voth wrote.

If the agents didn’t like it, “Maybe the Maricopa County Jail is hiring detention officers and you can get paid $30,000 (instead of $100,000) to serve lunch to inmates all day,” Voth wrote.

Dodson said he was told “the U.S. Attorney is on board, and it was Mr. [Emory] Hurley, and they say there is nothing illegal going on.”

What's HQ? I suppose it could be the U.S. Attorney's office. "HQ" sure sounds like more than that, though.

I like the threat to fire ATF agents who aren't willing to along with this deadly, stupid "plan." That's sweet. Tell your boss you're uncomfortable giving machine-guns to narcoterrorists, get threatened with a firing.*

Gee, I wonder why more agents aren't willing to speak up.

More talk of "HQ" keeping a close watch on the plan, which took the lives of two American agents:

“We are all entitled to our respective (albeit different) opinions however we all need to get along and realize that we have a mission to accomplish.”

He added: “Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we are doing what they envisioned.”

"People of rank and authority at HQ," huh? Well that does not sound like the U.S. Attorney to me. You'd just say "The U.S. Attorney."

So who are these unnamed persons of rank and authority at HQ?

Update: Duh, now that I think about it, "HQ" could just mean ATF HQ.

I suppose that's likely. But... if top-ranking ATF HQ people are watching, and the U.S. Attorney (Holder's boy) is watching, are they alone in watching?

LiveStream of Hearing: On CSPAN.

Thanks to Miss80sBaby.

* It's apparently more important than I thought to note an AK-47 is an assault rifle, not a machine-gun (or even submachinegun), and there seems to be some debate over how easily an AK-47 can be converted from civilian-model semi-auto to military-model full auto.

This was what we call "rhetoric."

But some don't like the idea that legal civilian semi-auto AK-47s are being called "machine guns," and it's a fair point, the media does insist on miscategorizing weaponry for dramatic/political effect.

Posted by: Ace at 08:08 AM | Comments (369)
Post contains 533 words, total size 4 kb.

Personally, I'm not sure why.

Here's what he said.

JOHN BROWN, VOTER: Osama bin Laden is dead. WeÂ’ve been in Afghanistan for ten years. IsnÂ’t it time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?

KING: Governor Romney, take the lead on that one.

ROMNEY: ItÂ’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the Taliban military in a way that theyÂ’re able to defend themselves. Excuse me, the Afghan military to defend themselves from the Taliban. ThatÂ’s an important distinction.

I want to say, first of all, thank you to you for the sacrifice of your family and your sons in defending the liberty that we have and our friends around the world. Thank you for what youÂ’ve done.

KING: Congressman Paul?

ROMNEY: Let me — let me continue. That is I think we’ve learned some important lessons in our experience in Afghanistan. I want those troops to come home based upon not politics, not based upon economics, but instead based upon the conditions on the ground determined by the generals.

But I also think weÂ’ve learned that our troops shouldnÂ’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation. Only the Afghanis can win AfghanistanÂ’s independence from the Taliban. Thank you.

That's controversial? Apparently so.

Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said her inbox was flooded Tuesday morning with emails calling Romney’s comments a “disaster.”

“I’d thought of Romney as a mainstream Republican – supporting American strength and American leadership, but this doesn’t reflect that,” she said. “Romney has proven himself a little bit of a weathervane and I guess he senses that positioning himself in this place is good for his campaign — attempting to appease Ron Paul’s constituents without actually being Ron Paul.”

“You can’t really triangulate on these issues. Either you think we’re fighting a war we need to win or you think we ought to bring all the troops home, but he said it all there,” Pletka said.

Other Republicans did not want to be quoted out of party loyalty and fear of the front runner.

There was a conspicuous silence from conservatives who have backed an aggressive U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and long feared that the Republican nominee would be tempted to turn against “Obama’s war.”

Conditions on the ground and military advice from commanders in the field is enough to get you labeled "a weathervane"? Maybe it was the "bring our troops home as soon as possible" bit that got some going but you know what? I'm pretty sure that's the overwhelming sentiment of the American people.

I don't believe there's any appreciable appetite in the country for an open ended commitment to Afghanistan. I think any President, Democrat or Republican is going to look at the victories we've won there recently and use it as an opportunity to take a step back in terms of our presence there. Either the Afghans are ready or close to being ready to take control of their country soon or they aren't. If after almost 10 years of support and training they aren't ready to carry the load, then isn't reassessing our strategy and commitment to them a reasonable and responsible action?

It all comes down to how you define victory.

If victory is punishing those who committed and abetted the 9/11 attacks and ensuring that Afghanistan is not going to be used as a giant basic training base for similar attacks (and as a bonus, given the Afghans a chance to build a decent country), then I'd say our military and intelligence forces have won.

If you think victory amounts to subduing every anti-American tribesman who also opposes the Karzai government in Kabul and turning Afghanistan into a semi-modern country, then I think you are signing the US up for an even longer mission and commitment very few Americans actually support.

Either way, people need to clearly define what they think "victory" means and let the voters decide.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:01 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 711 words, total size 5 kb.

Via Spitzer/Why I Hardly Even Know 'er:

SIMPSON: It's disappointing to me. I wouldn't have done this job if the president said everything is on the table. I respect the president. If a president asked me it do something, I would do it. It doesn't matter what party. But what's really disappointing is to hear him talk about bipartisanship all over the place to the big forums and then get into an intimate fund-raiser where he just rams it to Ryan and the Republican Party. That's not right.

[Clip of Obama's cowardly ambush call-out of invited guest Ryan omitted]

...

SIMPSON: And it's not fair. And it may be fair in his line of politics but it's sure poisoning the well.

SPITZER: Look, Joe Biden right now is carrying the water --

SIMPSON: God bless Joe Biden.

SPITZER: Trying to pull folks together. Are you hearing that there's any consensus forming where you have the Democrats and the Republicans willing even behind closed doors until things can coalesce to sort of cross these hard boundaries on the revenue for the Republicans and entitlements and Medicare for the Democrats?

SIMPSON: I've known Joe for over 30 years. He's a dear friend. I really, really respect him and admire him. He got me into this lovely chore. Hey, Al, I've got a real deal for you on this. Anyway, I'll tell you, if Joe can't get it done, nobody will get it done.

SPITZER: Look, you were just pretty hard on the president in terms of what you said, he's poisoning the well.

SIMPSON: Well, it was Ryan. It was bad to watch. And he didn't mention Ryan. He just mentioned the Republicans. That's not -- you know, how does that help heal? It doesn't help at all. Go ahead. Excuse me.

SPITZER: Have you gone to the president and said, look, Mr. President, I've picked up all the pieces of my life, came here with Erskine Bowles and put together this package that is the right package, we need you to stop poisoning the well, get out there and market it, use the position of the presidency to bring everybody together instead of playing this partisanship? Have you told him that?

SIMPSON: Not in that sense. But I did tell him I was disappointed in the way that he invited Ryan to that event and then without using Ryan's name just cremated Republicans. When it came to that line, "not on my watch," it looked like it was almost contrived applause. I mean, you can't do it that way and then as I say go out of the city and chop him up. But I tell you, he has to listen to Joe Biden this trip. If Joe can't do anything, forget all this.

SPITZER: Right.

SIMPSON: We won't go anywhere without Joe Biden and this crew. Nowhere.

And how serious is Joe Biden? Serious as a heart attack candy.

We're now posting yearly deficits of $1.7 T a year, and that's going up, not down, and that doesn't even include all the off-the-books stuff for entitlements.

Now, $14.6 T in debt, adding $1.7 T in fresh debt each and every year, Joe Biden is "confident" we can cut a a trillion... over the course of 10-12 years.

Or, something like $80 billion per year.

Which is only about double or triple what he wants to spend on his stupid Engineer Joe Full-Scale Model Train Hobby.

God Bless Joe Biden indeed.

Now as Joe Biden, Boy Genius, looks for ways to heroically cut less than 1% of our yearly deficit, what's the actual President up to?

Well, you should know his "work ethic" is "tireless."
more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:20 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 637 words, total size 4 kb.

I only heard that Norm MacDonald has a new show on Comedy Central three weeks ago (from Boston Irish and commenters here).

I still haven't seen it.

But I'm going to start, ASAP.

Via Aaron Worthing at Patterico's place, with an update about that other story I'm trying to take a break from.

Here's Gloria Alred, who is just the best. The best, Jerry. The best.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:47 AM | Comments (119)
Post contains 115 words, total size 2 kb.

China, Russia, Ahmadinejad, several other thugs, and several barely formed thugocracies met at the Hall of Doom in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, to talk about the problem with the evil Joooooos and what to do about the Big Satan's "totally unfair" missile shield. As usual, they hatched plans for kidnapping, assassination, and world domination, not realizing that if they made America like them, America would wipe them off the face of the planet.

The minutes of the meeting have been recorded in code. See vol. 3, issue #328, of DC Comics legendary The Krypton Syndrome:

But most attention was focused on Ahmadinejad, who was absent from last year's SCO meeting in Tashkent after the UN Security Council agreed sanctions against Iran and was making a rare appearance at a big international meeting.

In a characteristically firebrand speech peppered with rhetorical questions, he launched a new call for a wholesale shake-up of the world order, which he said was "managed and run by slavers and colonizers of the past."

"I believe together we can reform the way the world is managed. We can restore the tranquillity of the world," he said.

Turning to his audience of ex-Soviet and Asian leaders he asked: "Have any of us used an atomic bomb against the defenceless citizens of any other country?"

Returning to his past claims that a conspiracy could have been behind the September 11 attacks on the United States . . . .

Hu Jintao and Putin were seen to grunt their approval and nod, since their mouths were still full, having yet to finish devouring the three young maidservants assigned to them. Putin remarked later, "Cooked to perfection!" Hu Jintao laughed heartily in agreement.

Addendum to report: Appearing on the back cover of that issue, according to our inside man, Dr. Evil was nowhere to be seen, leading to more speculation that he is deceased, and that his son, Dr. Fat Evil, was not yet fully in control of the North Korean military.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 06:18 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.

Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:12 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Nominations for the Top 100 Current Clichés in the English Language

Here's a list of words and phrases that John Rentoul would like to see put on the Banned List.

Other recent additions to the List, which are over-used especially in politics and the reporting thereof, include "postcode lottery", "evidence-based", "metric" to mean "a measurement" and "around" to mean "about", as in "campaigning on issues around gender". Conservative ministers keep accusing Labour of having "maxed out" the nation's credit card. America is a great country, but some of its slang is best in its native habitat.

No doubt you've probably used some of these phrases yourself un-ironically, and most are not bad in that they do usefully describe something. But they're also way overused, often as mere word filler. So going forward you should make it a project on a daily basis to eschew these phrases in favor of fairly unique ones. And that's just common sense.

1. ItÂ’s the economy, stupid.
2. A week is a long time in politics. Or variants thereof, such as, “If a week is a long time in politics then a month seems an eternity.”
3. What part of x donÂ’t you understand? Although this one seems to have nearly died out already.
4. Way beyond, or way more.
5. Any time soon
.Â…
51. “Leverage” as a verb.
52. U-turn as a verb.
53. Dislocate as a noun. Or disconnect.
54. Toilet, storyline or any other unsuitable noun as a verb.
55. Exponential or exponentially used to mean big or a lot.
56. Incredible or incredibly as intensifiers.
57. On a daily basis.
58. ItÂ’s in his/her/their DNA.
59. LetÂ’s be clear.
60. At the end of the day.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 09:27 PM | Comments (649)
Post contains 831 words, total size 9 kb.