Senate holds the President to his own words - NOT

Allahpundit:

This wasn’t a resolution to authorize operations in Libya but something far craftier — a resolution reaffirming Obama’s own words from 2007 that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”   When Paul first introduced the idea last week, a flustered Harry Reid temporarily closed up shop to keep it from coming to the floor.

Turns out he needn’t have worried.  The roll: 90-10 opposed. Disgraceful.
...
...Since Democrats weren’t about to let this pass, there’s no reason Republicans should have let... [procedural objections] deter them from supporting it — if only to remind The One of what a hypocrite he is.

37 of the 47 Senate Republicans skip yet another chance to define the differences between the parties (or, alternatively, to remind the Democrats that Republicans can play politics, too), and instead vote to “get along by going along.”

Included in the 47, unsurprisingly: Indiana’s pair of establishment squishes, Coats and Lugar.

The list^[1]:

They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...

Although. as Glenn Reynolds notes:

So the headline should really be Senate Rejects Obama View Of War Powers 90-10.  Right?  Of course, only after Obama himself rejected it...

-----

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 15:39:19 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 4 kb.

Available in assorted sizes

Posted by: Old Grouch in Linkage at 15:56:25 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

In Congress *WAY* too long: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

Calling for a blasphemy law?

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Congress might need to explore the need to limit some forms of freedom of speech, in light of Tennessee^[1] pastor Terry Jones’ Quran burning, and how such actions result in enabling U.S. enemies.

“I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable.  Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war,” Graham told CBS’ Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” Sunday.

...demonstrating once and for all his lack of understanding of American liberty and, therefore, his unfitness for office.

I mean it.  Freedom of speech is something you don’t fool around with, and Graham is a fool.

Chef Mojo:

The people of South Carolina need to get their collective heads out of their asses and hand Graham his on a platter.  His support of limiting our speech to appease the Religion of the Perpetually Offended is but one of many reasons to primary his ass out of existence.

Rick Moran:

...a dangerous, doltish example of the kind of casual authoritarianism found in today’s Congress.

Ace:

No matter what the nail, for a certain segment of the population the right tool for the job is always some more state control and forbiddance of unhygeinic thought.

Mark Steyn:

...Ever since I ran into a spot of bother in Canada, I’ve found myself giving speeches in defense of freedom of expression in Toronto, London, Copenhagen, etc.  I did not think it would be necessary quite so soon to take the same stand in the land of the First Amendment against craven squishes of the political class willing to trade core liberties for a quiet life.

Elsewhere:

The rest of the list: -----

Posted by: Old Grouch in In Passing at 00:24:16 GMT | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 6 kb.

“You don’t want to make me come over there!”

Glenn Reynolds quotes Claire Berlinski, on the “Koran burning” murders in Afghanistan:

The premise is that the killers had no moral agency–in other words, that they were, literally, animals.

...and extends the premise:

If there’s no moral agency, then I guess the folks who argued for a return to colonialism after 9/11 were right.  If Muslims aren’t capable of self-control or moral responsibility, then they must be ruled with a firm hand by those who are.

But colonialism requires the cultural confidence that your own society is (overall, by and large) better than the others on offer, the belief that changing other peoples’ lives for the better (by force if necessary) is right and good, and the perseverence to see things through over the long term.  Now, does anyone seriously belive that America’s political class has the beliefs, the guts, and the stamina to engage in such a project?  Certainly our “progressive” community, with its multi-culti-inspired guilt and its hatred for its own country, would be whining all the way, while working both overtly and covertly to sabotage any such project.

But the tiger is still out there.  The threat remains.  Merely exercising our freedoms provokes its violent reactions.  We can’t ignore it, it refuses to “live-and-let-live” with us, accommodation threatens our culture (and our safety) and we have no will to “rule with a firm hand.”  So what do we do?  Cheerfully wait to be eaten?

There remains a less-mentioned alternative.  Ace:

We recognize that the proper response to savagery and terror is savagery and terror, and we drop our illusions about being able to effect a good solution to this problem, and we begin revising our policy about bombing population centers.  And we define a major terrorist attack as being a nuclear-level attack, inviting a nuclear response.

Bill Quick

...Recall what eventually happened, when the British finally decided to confront the Mahdists with the full force of their military power:

...
Sudan:  30,000 dead, wounded or captured.
Britain:  700+ British, Egyptian and Sudanese dead, wounded or captured.

Of course, it took the Brits 13 years to get around to doing this, and that was back when they had both balls and an empire.

It’s not an attractive alternative.  Americans like to think we’re good people, and “good” people don’t go around killing others.  Yet every incident, every atrocity, every outrage makes this less-mentioned alternative more thinkable.  And what was thought outrageous will become more and more mainstream.

Personally, I don’t give a damn about the “Muslim world.”  (Perhaps I should, although perhaps if I did I would have to do something about it, and that way lies colonialism.)  But I’m not ready to exchange my liberties and culture for peace and quiet from Islam.  And increasingly, the whole “Muslim project” is looking like a lousy deal. Along with “Stable Hand,” I’m asking:

Does winning the hearts of minds of Muslims in the ME mean we have to give up our 1st Amendment rights?  Does winning the hearts and minds of Muslims mean our female soldiers have to wear the hijab instead of their helmets?

and conclude

It doesn’t matter what we do.. it will never be enough until other Muslims stand up against radical Muslims who wish to harm them and us.

Which will happen...?

Meanwhile, it’s midnight. I’m tired, and just want some peace and quiet.  But the neighbors next door keep making a racket and won’t go to sleep.  (Except these neighbors are busy arming themselves with nuclear weapons, and will kill me as soon as they think they can get away with it.  And all the cops are on strike.)

“You don’t want to make me come over there!”


Elsewhere:

Related:
-----
Note (110404 18:12):  I made a slight adjustment to the rhetoric in the “colonialsim” paragraph, after Mark Steyn provided exactly the mots justes I’d been searching for.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 23:49:01 GMT | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 12 kb.