In a bipartisan display the House repealed ObamaCare:
The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.
The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.
...The three Democrats who voted for repeal were Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), and Mike Ross (Ark.), all of whom opposed the law last year. Seven other Democrats who opposed the original law also opposed its repeal. Only the hospitalized Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) missed the vote.
It's on to the Senate, where not much will happen but maybe a few Dems will be put in an awkward spot for 2012.
Obama could care less.
============
Posted by: The Camptown Races. | January 19, 2011 at 09:24 PM
Don't be so glib about the Senate. It already looks like there will be two less Dems there after the next election.I doubt the media would be working so hard at distorting public opinion on the act if they thought everything were in the bag. On the prior thread I posted Heritage's strategy on how to get the repeal bill before the Senate and force its hand.
In the meantime the Ct in Fla will soon be handing down its ruling and I am optimistic about it.If you were a Dem senator in a tough race and it looked like Obamacare was going down in the courts anyway, why not vote for repeal/
Posted by: clarice | January 19, 2011 at 09:28 PM
Yay. One Promise kept. Keep it up folks.
TM for Lieberman's seat.
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2011 at 09:35 PM
Woo Hoo. Tom Maguire for CT Senator. I am all in! Where do I send a contribution?
Posted by: centralcal | January 19, 2011 at 09:38 PM
Caro can do the graphic work; hit and bgates the ads..Rick can disable the web feature that records where the donations are coming from. daddy can run Ct 1, the official campaign plane with Man Tran running the back up .This could be beautiful.
Posted by: clarice | January 19, 2011 at 09:46 PM
Bipartisan. If Cao made a bill bipartisan, certainly 300% more is even more bipartisan.
Posted by: Gmax | January 19, 2011 at 09:47 PM
Like Clarice, I am extremely optimistic about the FL case. And no one can tell me that none of the SCt justices will attach significance to the fact that a majority of the states are now asking the federal judiciary to hold that the congress has exceeded its authority over them.
Nor will they be blind to the manner in which it was enacted and the breakdown of the vote--nor the action of the house today. Such extra-legal factors can certainly influence the way they elect to interpret the constitution in this circumstance, particularly since they can void it without offending stare decicis principles.
I think we're supposed to hear from FL this month.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2011 at 09:49 PM
I think the Senate will be forced to vote, even if its an amendment to another bill. And 24 Democrats up for election are going to assume Zero votes present and vetos, so they might just vote for repeal.
Posted by: Gmax | January 19, 2011 at 09:50 PM
Another good point,gmax.
Posted by: clarice | January 19, 2011 at 09:52 PM
McConnell says they will vote. He was pretty crafty with just 41, I bet he has a strategy up his sleeve to force a vote. Reid is not that bright in my opinion so I will not bet against McConnell getting rebounding position on him.
Posted by: Gmax | January 19, 2011 at 09:56 PM
Clarice's post on the other thread lays out the roadmap for forcing a vote. Assuming the analyst is correct, I am confident McConnell will be on top of it--the old boy is not Mr. cCharisma, but he's nobody's fool.
What troubles me is the softening in the polls. I hope it doesn't continue.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 19, 2011 at 10:02 PM
I don't believe those polls,DoT.
Posted by: clarice | January 19, 2011 at 10:08 PM
Gmax:
If Cao made a bill bipartisan, certainly 300% more is even more bipartisan.
Cao voted for a 2009 version of ObamaCare but did NOT vote for the final bill.
The final bill was 100% Democratic.
Posted by: hit and run | January 19, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Here's some pics of Hillary at the communist festivities...
Looking pregnant & thirsty.
Looking REALLY thirsty.
Posted by: Janet | January 19, 2011 at 10:27 PM
OT,
Yesterday was in Penang, Malaysia. Penang is a fair sized island halfway down the southern side of the Malay Peninsula. The Brits colonized it in the 1700's, and imported tons of South Indian peasants to work their plantations there, as well as Chinese etc, so it has a large multi-culti population much like Singapore.
Yesterday, taking the taxi to the airport, we got stuck in about a 2 hour traffic jam. It happened to be the Hindu Festival of ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaipusam"> THAIPUSAM. In celebration of the Hindu God Murugan devotee's parade long distance with metal spears and fishhooks stuck through their flesh, towards images of the God. That is what we unexpectedly bumped into yesterday on the taxiride.
Anyhow, here are some interesting ">http://penangpage.com/thaipusam/"> photos of the festival in Penang, much like what we saw yesterday. One interesting point is we kept passing huge piles of coconuts stacked up along the roadside. The Taxi driver said that the tradition is you take a coconut and throw it as hard as you can in the street. If it breaks open on the first try then you will have good luck in the coming year. So here I suppose is a picture of a lot of folks ">http://penangpage.com/thaipusam/thaipu15.jpg"> getting lucky.
If anyone cares, this last link has a video link halfway down that is strictly on the Penang celebration.
Namaste!
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2011 at 10:32 PM
Janet-
The first one?
"What's this s&%t sitting on the bottom?"
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 19, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Yeah Mel...& a little red coat. What's with the over-the-top celebration of red China? Kinda weird & disgusting.
Posted by: Janet | January 19, 2011 at 10:46 PM
Hey, I can't blame I'd drink too, if I was stuck listening to Obama and Biden, seeming
profound.
Posted by: narciso | January 19, 2011 at 11:01 PM
--Obama could care less.--
Could or couldn't?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 19, 2011 at 11:11 PM
I don't trust the "new" polls either, Clarice.
This is for Threadkiller:
"Officials in Hawaii have tracked down papers indicating that President Obama was indeed born in their state, according to its new governor."
My long form BC is just *one* paper. (I thought no one could look at the document without BO's permission.)
Posted by: Frau Pfui | January 19, 2011 at 11:39 PM
Anyone know if any action is being taken to fix the problems encountered by our deployed Armed Forces personnel getting their ballots on time and their votes counted, or has that issue dropped down the memory hole once again until next election?
Posted by: daddy | January 19, 2011 at 11:44 PM
I just read today at At that Abercrombie conceded he could not find the BC in the records file..this after he promised to release it.
Posted by: clarice | January 19, 2011 at 11:45 PM
Hawaii has special laws for immigrants born there.Tom,too liberal for Congress.
Posted by: Freedomofleaks(our wiki) | January 19, 2011 at 11:59 PM
Let me try this again:
Posted by: RichatUF | January 20, 2011 at 12:12 AM
Frau, I think Abercrombie is a bit on the nutsy side.
Nice work Rich1
Niters.
Posted by: clarice | January 20, 2011 at 12:17 AM
Only question about TM running for senate is would he join a club that would have Frank Lautenberg, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, fill-in-the-blank, as a member.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2011 at 12:26 AM
He's mad as a hatter, in relative terms anyways
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2011 at 12:27 AM
TM the Nutmegger would be a perfect succes d'estime for a state that sadly showed its decadence by electing a guy who lied about being in Vietnam last November. And TM wouldn't wimp out like Scott Brown when the crunch time called for cojones, I'll bet on that.
Posted by: daveinboca | January 20, 2011 at 12:48 AM
I heart Frau!
Democrats raise the certificate issue more than conservatives. Obama was born British, he admitted it, and the BC is a distraction played well by the Dems. He is not Natural Born even though he was born here.
Why is this the focus again? Because the narrative is controlled by Obama.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2011 at 02:32 AM
This news flash from Hawaii is designed to ">http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/01/19/2011-01-19_record_of_obamas_birth_is_in_the_archives_hawaii_gov.html"> set the stage.
When the dust settles an anchor baby will be eligible for POTUS. No one will be able to argue what is really wrong with Obama’s allegiance. We have been labeled conspiracy theorists even if we don’t rely on a conspiracy. Note that they say they have dealt with “most” theories. I wish they would tackle the one they missed. He admitted he was born subject to British Law.
This is the move I warned about. It is only one lousy piece of paper away from the destruction of “Natural Born.”
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2011 at 02:48 AM
Gmax:
"McConnell says they will vote."
Funny, but it already seems like McConnell, not Reid, is the Majority Leader doesn't it? I think he and Boehner are going to be a knockout team on the Hill, and I have high hopes that, for once, Republicans can manage to be as disciplined in a majority as they are when they're in the minority.
RichatUF:
Many thanks for your link to the article on China at Foreign Policy from the other day. Well worth the read!
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 20, 2011 at 02:49 AM
I lived on Oahu in 1970-71 and Abercrombie was a goofy-left radio guy at the time. Around the bend.
Put some crosshairs or a bullseye on that nice blue map. Generate a little buzz. Drive 'em nuts.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2011 at 03:28 AM
What i can say nobody listening every body wanna say something but nobody want to listen...
why we say?
Posted by: Vigrx Pills | January 20, 2011 at 04:17 AM
"Officials in Hawaii have tracked down papers indicating that President Obama was indeed born in their state, according to its new governor."
Was there a Kinko's receipt stuck to the back of these "papers"?
Posted by: Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign | January 20, 2011 at 07:09 AM
Heh, Iggy, a 50 year old controversy. 'Could care less' is gaining in usage, I believe for its sarcastic appeal. I went round and round with BrianH about it on the climate blogs and finally gave up and googled it.
===============
Posted by: Both usages in use. | January 20, 2011 at 07:09 AM
Yeah, TK, I note the narrative being framed which will tolerate the absence of the long form.
Will the Polloi buy it? The fish, the bait, the Gish, we wait.
===============
Posted by: He doesn't know the truth himself. | January 20, 2011 at 07:12 AM
He doesn't know the truth himself.
I bet you're right.
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2011 at 07:21 AM
Mapes, Rather, Lucy, ScaryLarry, et al probably have a nice collection of 70's era typewriters that the governor could borrow so he won't need to use MSWord for these 60's era "papers".
Posted by: Bill in AZ sez it's time for Zero to resign | January 20, 2011 at 07:22 AM
and about that abortion story...Don Surber reminds us, "As you read this, just remember that as an Illinois legislator, Barack Obama opposed making it a crime to kill a baby who was born alive despite an attempted abortion."
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2011 at 07:40 AM
Janet, he also opposed the IL version of the partial birth abortion ban. Michelle campaigned with him to oppose both bills.
Our moral leaders.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 20, 2011 at 07:57 AM
Yet to save a minnow farmers in Calif. can't have water for their crops....
I would be ashamed to be a Democrat.
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2011 at 08:05 AM
Janet-- thanks for the photos--they are proof hillary is never running for office again. Starting 15 years ago she'd wake up in the morning and a NASCAR pit crew would jump in and do the necesary work to make he presentable for the cameras. No more. Unlike that wine she was gulping down, Hillary is not aging well and she doesn't care. No more elections for Hillary, she'll retire as Dean of some all - women's college. Natch. BTW-- the Hawaii birth stuff-- I have come around to believe that the "proof" is affidavits of birth from the Dunham grandparents listing "Honolulu" as the birthplace no hospital, no doctor, a few weeks later the mother flies off to Mercer Isl Wash. without the kid. BHO doesn't know the facts of his own birthplace. His 2 bios are complete fabrications. Just one man's opinion based on the limuted available facts.
Posted by: NK | January 20, 2011 at 08:11 AM
Taranto: Palinoia, the Destroyer - What's behind the left's deranged hatred.
Even he needs to throw in the common qualifier, I guess to show obeisance to his WSJ bosses:
What possesses otherwise intelligent people to do this without a comparison? Presidential timber compared to whom? George Washington? Well, maybe not. Barack Obama? Who isn't???Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2011 at 08:19 AM
daddy,
Your travelogues are one of the reasons I frequent JOM. Thank you for taking the time to share.
Posted by: MoodyBlu | January 20, 2011 at 08:33 AM
I don't believe those polls,DoT.
I don't either. But boy the left surely is pushing them.
If TM runs, where will we go?
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 20, 2011 at 08:39 AM
NK-
Stanley Ann took baby Barack with her and hauled him to a high school friends family home on Mercer Island. There is video testimony of this.
She didn't even know how to change his diapers...
Posted by: glasater | January 20, 2011 at 08:44 AM
Ditto re the travelogues--
Thank you daddy for the narrative descriptions and photos of your travels they are fabulous.
Posted by: NK | January 20, 2011 at 08:45 AM
glaster--
thanks for the factual update. I still assume the only documentation is grandparent affidavits-- no long form, no doctor signature. If those are the facts, oi vey, conspiratorialists will go nutz claiming the birth was in Kenya or wherever. I believe in the more prosaic scenario, BHO was born in Hawaii, but he doesn't know the details, he never fact checked because his 2 autobios are the work of a fabulist. Just one man's opinion.
Posted by: NK | January 20, 2011 at 08:50 AM
Didn't mean to sound curt NK but we dredged through this stuff long ago.
I personally think he was born in British Columbia....:-)
Posted by: glasater | January 20, 2011 at 08:56 AM
We don't know, do we? Isn't it odd that in all this lack of knowledge, the ones pointing out our ignorance are deemed crazy?
There's not just Palinoia, a wonderful word by the way, it's much more surreal than that.
============
Posted by: Give me an 'N'. | January 20, 2011 at 09:00 AM
Give me an-- I agree we don't "KNOW" facts of BHO's birthplace. Amazing isn't it. Moreover, we still won't "know" when BHO runs again in 2012. The one thing that may change that is this wacko Abercrombie. If he really is poking around Hawaii Dept. of Health records, some facts will come out. Whatever they are I am pretty confident they'll show that BHO's autobiographies are fabrications.
Posted by: NK | January 20, 2011 at 09:13 AM
PS-- no problem glaster, I always want to learn the facts. Your opinion that he was born in BC is as valid as anything, because we don't know the facts.
Posted by: NK | January 20, 2011 at 09:15 AM
This article illustrates the tensions that are inevitable within a democracy: Glaspie Memo Refutes Claims Leaked Docs Were Classified for ‘Security’. Classification used to hide screw ups, and for no other obvious reason.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Jane: "If TM runs, where will we go?"
He will need a staff won't he? And there will be a water cooler won't there? We'll do just what we always do but this time on the taxpayers' dime, silly.
Posted by: clarice | January 20, 2011 at 09:35 AM
--"I believe in the more prosaic scenario, BHO was born in Hawaii, but he doesn't know the details, he never fact checked because his 2 autobios are the work of a fabulist. Just one man's opinion."--
NK, I believe you are right about his own knowledge of his birth.
He did">http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate"> fact check that he was born subject to British rule.
A dual citizen is not eligible for POTUS and an anchor baby is not a citizen if he/she has a parent that holds a foreign citizenship.
Abercrombie is doing this with purpose, IMO. He has led us to the birth water; he can't make me drink.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2011 at 09:36 AM
I know this is belated, but they raise a good point, in the LUN;
http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffrey carr/2011/01/17/the-new-york-times-fails-to-deliver-the-stuixtnet creators
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2011 at 09:41 AM
April Glaspie?!?
The Queen of Careerist State Department Ineptitude?
That's not exactly a source worth clicking on...
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2011 at 09:44 AM
Frankly, IMO Abercrombie is a big mouthed idiot looking for publicity. He misunderstood the carefully parsed statement of the Hawaiian official on Obama's birth record some years ago and consequently he bragged that he'd produce the long form BC . Now he finds there isn't one so he's tap dancing and using the phrase "records in the archives"..Frau picked up on this dance last night.
Posted by: clarice | January 20, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Janet-- thanks for the photos--they are proof hillary is never running for office again. Starting 15 years ago she'd wake up in the morning and a NASCAR pit crew would jump in and do the necesary work to make he presentable for the cameras.
That's a great analogy. She really looks horrible in that red maternity pantsuit. Maybe it's dawned on her that her political "genius" husband is as useless as tits on a boar. And barely suitable to be seen in public.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Narciso's stuixtnet link
Posted by: boris | January 20, 2011 at 09:52 AM
OK, if the actual cable that Glaspie sent, in toto, is of no interest, then try this--Juan Cole's summary: Glaspie Memo Vindicates Her, Shows Saddam’s Thinking.
Cole's conclusion is:
He ends with:
The earlier link makes the point that the continued classification of the "Glaspie Memo" served no legitimate security need but rather served to cover the behinds of persons whose pay grade was above Glaspie's.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 09:56 AM
That author helped you, less.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2011 at 09:57 AM
Stuxnet deniers are in the same category as flat earthers and those who deny Israeli involvement in the Dubai assassination.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 09:59 AM
& a little red coat. What's with the over-the-top celebration of red China? Kinda weird & disgusting.
What I find stunning is that MO knows to wear red to flatter the Chinese, but to a *memorial* service she wears a light-colored floral sweater.
Posted by: PD | January 20, 2011 at 10:00 AM
In 2009 that http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm "> Hawaii official did not do that much better.
Always “records” plural, nothing new here. At least the good doctor did something that the SCOTUS has never done. She defined “natural born” in here public statement. How convenient for the narrative.
It is a setup.
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2011 at 10:04 AM
That author helped you, less.
Why so close minded? Perhaps you could point out where your points of disagreement are.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM
"...in her public statement."
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Oh, that'll convince me more.
Who was Glaspie's #2 in station?
Advice received from that point alone should give rise to the veracity of any expos facto memo by her. Idiocy runs in circles, not in a straight line. Who was in her circle there?
And I'm not going to bring it up again.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2011 at 10:07 AM
No, L'Chaim to the Caesarea team, but what is the proof that Israel was behind this,
'Bueller, Bueller'.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Wasn't it Joe Wilson, who was her no. 2, as I recall from Kaplan's "the Arabists"
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2011 at 10:11 AM
We'll do just what we always do but this time on the taxpayers' dime, silly.
Wow! We are starting to get smart!
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 20, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Boris the rescue angel:)
Posted by: glasater | January 20, 2011 at 10:13 AM
You point me at serial liar Juan Cole and ask why I'm close minded?
Puh-lease.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Advice received from that point alone should give rise to the veracity of any expos [sic] facto memo by her.
Utterly cryptic. Please explain what that means.
The Glaspie Memo--viewable here--was sent the same day, 7/25/90, as the interview with Saddam. Hardly ex post facto, unless you'd expect her to use Saddam's office phone to report back orally.
As for the Dubai hit, I took a lot of grief for pointing out the obvious evidence. I understand that the deniers here thought they were somehow doing their duty and didn't genuinely disbelieve.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM
You point me at serial liar Juan Cole and ask why I'm close minded?
I asked you to point out what your points of disagreement are. A legitimate request and one easily satisfied, since Cole's post is quite short. And, yes, the refusal to even look at opposing points of view is close minded. If you wish, you can add examples of Cole's lies.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM
Heritage continues on what the Reps can do pending the possibility of repeal or court action.
To start the de facto repeal of Obamacare, lawmakers should focus on dismantling the key provisions that form the very foundation of the law’s architecture. This means, for example, going after the pillars of the law through a variety of means like de-funding its critical aspects, engaging in aggressive oversight of the consequences of the law and enacting legislative triggers to delay or block its implementation. All these approaches will contribute to Obamacare’s implosion.
While that important national debate is taking place, the House of Representatives can move to defund provisions of Obamacare through either a rescissions package or funding riders. Congress is not required to fund this law or the myriad of new programs that it spawned. Like every other federal program, the current Congress can adjust – or even zero out – the level of funding for the implementation of Obamacare. Special provisions in the health care law will complicate the process, but the propriety of de-funding is unquestionable. As noted by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), "Congress is not required to provide funds for every agency or purpose authorized by law."
De-funding is a legitimate use of the power of the purse that the Founding Fathers wisely granted to Congress. It won’t be easy. Obamacare was designed to be the governmental equivalent of kudzu - growing everywhere. However, Obamacare is not a fait accompli, no matter what the Left is telling you.
Posted by: clarice | January 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM
Her infamous reference to the US not getting involved in inter-Arab disputes referred to a limited issue, the exact border between Iraq and Kuwait, and could not possibly have been interpreted as permission to invade Kuwait!
Oh, it most certainly could have been interpreted as permission, depending on how the reference was made. Without coroborating evidence from the Iraqi side of the meeting (which in and of itself might be a very suspect bit if information), this could not possibly have been interpreted is simply as assertion without any fact to back it up.
Posted by: Ranger | January 20, 2011 at 10:19 AM
depending on how the reference was made.
Ranger, instead of speculating based on a summary, why not refer to the exact text of her cable, which I linked above--or do you share Mel's aversion to fact based analysis?
¶2. SUMMARY: SADDAM TOLD THE AMBASSADOR JULY 25
THAT MUBARAK HAS ARRANGED FOR KUWAITI AND IRAQI
DELEGATIONS TO MEET IN RIYADH, AND THEN ON
JULY 28, 29 OR 30, THE KUWAITI CROWN PRINCE WILL
COME TO BAGHDAD FOR SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS. "NOTHING
WILL HAPPEN" BEFORE THEN, SADDAM HAD PROMISED
MUBARAK.
--SADDAM WISHED TO CONVEY AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO
PRESIDENT BUSH: IRAQ WANTS FRIENDSHIP, BUT DOES
THE USG? IRAQ SUFFERED 100,000'S OF CASUALTIES
AND IS NOW SO POOR THAT WAR ORPHAN PENSIONS WILL
SOON BE CUT; YET RICH KUWAIT WILL NOT EVEN ACCEPT
OPEC DISCIPLINE. IRAQ IS SICK OF WAR, BUT KUWAIT
HAS IGNORED DIPLOMACY. USG MANEUVERS WITH THE UAE
WILL ENCOURAGE THE UAE AND KUWAIT TO IGNORE
CONVENTIONAL DIPLOMACY. IF IRAQ IS PUBLICLY
HUMILIATED BY THE USG, IT WILL HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO "RESPOND," HOWEVER ILLOGICAL AND SELF
DESTRUCTIVE THAT WOULD PROVE.
--ALTHOUGH NOT QUITE EXPLICIT, SADDAM'S MESSAGE
TO US SEEMED TO BE THAT HE WILL MAKE A MAJOR PUSH
TO COOPERATE WITH MUBARAK'S DIPLOMACY, BUT WE MUST
TRY TO UNDERSTAND KUWAITI/UAE "SELFISHNESS" IS
UNBEARABLE. AMBASSADOR MADE CLEAR THAT WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY OTHER THAN PEACEFUL MEANS. END SUMMARY.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:26 AM
That last part makes her less incompetent, however, missing the reference to the Shatt-al-Arab makes up for it.
'Excuse me, Mr. President, but you broke the treaty in 1980, when you invaded Iran, who's to say you will not abide by the determination in this case.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2011 at 10:32 AM
Mel, ranger, narciso *bang bang bang*
Posted by: clarice | January 20, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Ah, so that settles it! Of course "WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE" doesn't exactly mean "will never tolorate," or "will never accept."
And there is no way Saddam could have read that as "WE CAN NEVER EXCUSE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY OTHER THAN PEACEFUL MEANS... wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean." Especially since the US had tolorated Iraq and Iran's efforts to resolve their border dispure by force for years. Of course, we didn't excuse the Iran-Iraq War, but we tolorated it.
Posted by: Ranger | January 20, 2011 at 10:37 AM
OK, I think I get it, although it was hard to follow. When Mel says:
what he means is:
Wow. Ignore evidence in favor of speculation--on principle!
Anyway, Wikipedia offers a summary of retrospective competing views re Glaspie's discussions with Saddam, compiled before Wikileaks' release of the actual text of the cable.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Clarice,
To atone for my sins... slightly off topic, but (from Hot Air):
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/20/gop-set-to-roll-out-2-5-trillion-in-cuts-over-next-10-years/>GOP set to roll out $2.5 trillion in cuts over next 10 years
In my opinion this is a perfectly laid trap for Obama. He will complain that the cuts are too deep and too draconian. At which point the Republican leadership can remind Obama that the spending levels they are proposing are basically the same spending levels he promised to make "net spending cuts" from in the 2008 election campaign and should ask for his counter proposal. What gets cut may be negotiable, but the spending level on the table is what Obama already agreed to when he ran for president.
Posted by: Ranger | January 20, 2011 at 10:43 AM
The US went way beyond tolerating the Iran-Iraq war. We provided military assistance to both sides. Imagine how that knowledge affected ME views toward the US as an "honest broker!"
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM
the wise words of Mogatu, 'am I the only one out here, not on crazy pills' the kudzu
parallel to Obamacare is very apt, also a computer virus, something I've had more than
a passing experience with, again,
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM
To atone for my sins...
How pathetic. You've been a bad wittle boy.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Good point, ranger. Te Obamacare repeal bill and defunding bills which will surely follow are also traps for him and I do not believe he can wriggly easily out of them.Even with the considerable assistance of the media.
Posted by: clarice | January 20, 2011 at 10:50 AM
This will make you barf:
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | January 20, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Sorry about the virus, narciso. I expect that you do so much research on line that it's hard to avoid hitting infected sites.
Posted by: clarice | January 20, 2011 at 10:51 AM
I've been debating locally with a guy who claims he has never seen any poll that shows more people disapproved of Obamacare than approved of it - especially before it passed. Sheesh. He claims "he follows this stuff closely." I pointed him to a CNN poll that showed 59% disapproval of the bill just before passage last March. But it kills me that people won't do any research into anything anymore (lots of anys there).
Posted by: Specter | January 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM
The US went way beyond tolerating the Iran-Iraq war.
An observation that doesn't actually bolster the main argument you are making. In fact, it supports the notion that the statement by the State Department representetive that "WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY OTHER THAN PEACEFUL MEANS." was little more than diplomatic boilerplating that had to be stated for formalities sake, but was not meant to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Ranger | January 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Ah, so that settles it! Of course "WE CAN
NEVER EXCUSE" doesn't exactly mean "will never tolorate," or "will never accept."
That depends on the overall context, doesn't it? The entire cable makes very interesting reading. For that matter, "will never tolorate," [sic] or "will never accept" doesn't necessarily mean "we will invade with overwhelming military force," either. It might mean, "we will apply further sanctions and apply diplomatic pressure by supporting other countries and isolating Iraq." Just as "WE CAN NEVER EXCUSE" could mean exactly the same things--including, in context--military action. Glaspie demanded to know Saddam's intentions.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Jane - the front runners right now are Bysiewicz and Murphy to run on the DemoNcrat side. Fedele is making comments about running on the Republican side. 'Course Unready Neddy is always lurking in the wings...
Posted by: Specter | January 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Somewhere in Obamacare is a provision that, at some point, every insurance contract of insurance written in America will have to conform to the standards set by HHS. Other than the individual mandate, that is the most onerous provision in the whole thing. I don't see how defunding can touch it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Let me know if you need more ammo Clarice.
And it was so quiet...
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM
OL-
It's not the only place I stepped in it. E-mail coming...
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Ranger, get back to me when you've read the entire cable and digested its contents. You're obviously just talking off the top of your head. Saddam complained to Glaspie about the US role in the Iran-Iraq war. In that context, WE CAN NEVER EXCUSE can hardly be construed as boilerplate. Indeed, Saddam also stated:
IF IRAQ IS PUBLICLY HUMILIATED BY THE USG, IT WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO "RESPOND," HOWEVER ILLOGICAL AND SELF DESTRUCTIVE THAT WOULD PROVE.
Which demonstrates that he was aware that the US might well respond to his unspecified actions in ways that would be extremely destructive to Iraq. IOW, Saddam knew that Glaspie's words weren't "diplomatic boilerplate."
You can learn so much by actually reading the available material.
Posted by: anduril | January 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM
"Somewhere in Obamacare is a provision that, at some point, every insurance contract of insurance written in America will have to conform to the standards set by HHS."
And HHS will control the premiums and the amount of spending required by insurers and on what items...
But the "Govt Takeover" is the big lie, right?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Boy they are really 'having intercourse with that chicken' in the NBC/Wall Street
journal poll, I tell you
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM
It's crazy trying to talk with people who feel that Obamacare is the best thing since sliced bread. I tried using this logic:
The HHS standards are just the starting point...
Posted by: Specter | January 20, 2011 at 11:14 AM