The coalition backing Hillary's War has not even held together through the weekend:
CAIRO—The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya on Sunday and said he would call a new league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.
Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to embrace the intense bombing and missile attacks—including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces—that have filled Arab television screens for the last two days.
“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement on the official Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”
Moussa’s declaration suggested some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya. Although the eccentric Gaddafi is widely looked down on in the Arab world, Middle Eastern leaders and their peoples traditionally have risen up in emotional protest at the first sign of Western intervention.
Good grief. Let's reprise the decision making process that led us to this:
The administration’s shift also became possible only after the United States won not just the support of Arab countries but their active participation in military operations against one of their own.
“Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-to-5 vote, which is no easy thing,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal group with close ties to the administration. This “puts the United States in a much stronger position because they’ve got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 gulf war than the 2003 Iraq war.”
...
The pivotal decision for Mr. Obama came on Tuesday though, after Mrs. Clinton had called from Paris with news that the Arab governments were willing to participate in military action. That would solve one of Mr. Gates’s concerns, that the United States not be viewed on the Arab street as going to war against another Muslim country.
Mrs. Clinton “had the proof,” one senior administration official said, “that not only was the Arab League in favor, but that the Emirates were serious about participating.”
And let's remember what Barack said only yesterday:
In this effort, the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people. That coalition met in Paris today to send a unified message, and it brings together many of our European and Arab partners.
Or two days ago:
The Arab League and the European Union joined us in calling for an end to violence.
Well, it looks like the Arab League is still calling for an end to the violence.
Now let's have a To Be Fair interlude. The small-minded and unimaginative will criticize Obama for this unraveling of the diplomatic effort. But as he has made clear, the US is basically a passive bystander to this:
But unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama cast the United States in a supporting, almost reluctant role, reflecting the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has been strongly resistant to another American war in the Middle East. He said that Britain, France and Arab nations would take the lead, and that United States ground forces would not enter Libya.
So blame France, or Hillary, or anyone but Barry.
AND TO BE DOUBLY FAIR: If tha Arab League bails out, Obama's seemingly daft recommendation that US military involvement be limited to "days, not weeks" seems plausible. This whole no-fly plan my be the thing that is not flying.
He believed something Hillary said? ROFLMAO
Posted by: clarice | March 20, 2011 at 04:24 PM
Newsbusters has a post titled Bill Mahr Ignorance Update. I don't care about Mahr anymore, but I like the idea of an "Ignorance Update". "Useful idiots" is another good term that should be more widely used. Another good one I have in my quote book is, "bleeding-heart ignoramuses"...
Posted by: Janet | March 20, 2011 at 04:39 PM
the United States is acting with a broad coalition that is committed to enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
So this particular UN resolution just happens to be the same number as the year the War Powers Act was passed?
Posted by: hit and run | March 20, 2011 at 04:39 PM
Mr. Obama cast the United States in a supporting, almost reluctant role, reflecting the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has been strongly resistant to another American war in the Middle East.
Was the Pentagon more concerned about America having a leading, assertive role in Libya, or about newspaper headlines reporting that to be the case? If it's the former, I don't see how Obama's casting decision is any help.
Posted by: bgates | March 20, 2011 at 04:51 PM
Here's the article "bleeding-heart ignoramuses" came from.
"That Israel is fighting the frontline war, on behalf of the freedom and civilization of all of us, against the very real evils of shari'a law never seems to occur to these bleeding-heart ignoramuses."
Posted by: Janet | March 20, 2011 at 04:52 PM
How many times in the past week has somebody in the White House made this argument:
"We need some kind of military action to get middle America behind us, we can't afford to piss off the base, we have assets in the Med, Europe willing to fight, and a new government in Egypt responsive to its people....
...why can't we lead a coalition to liberate Palestine?"
Posted by: bgates | March 20, 2011 at 04:57 PM
Operation Kill Daffy has twelve days to run (per the observation of uninterested innocent bystander, POTUS). If no dead duck is produced within that time does Daffy get to call "olly, olly oxen free" or does Operation Reload begin?
It was very kind of the President of the United States to provide the exact length of Deadly Duck season in advance. Not very clever, but very kind.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 20, 2011 at 05:09 PM
'Smart' is being corrupted by the left and their betrayal of language. See 'smart planning', 'smart meters' etc. You'd have to be dumb not to love authoritarianism.
==================
Posted by: 'Smart' smells of tyranny. | March 20, 2011 at 05:12 PM
I think the Arab League figures that Khaddafy himself is being targeted. Hmm, wasn't Castro targeted by some President?
================
Posted by: Brother and Son is now addicted to UAV assassination. | March 20, 2011 at 05:15 PM
I think the Arab league figured we'd waste time and our troops flying over the antiaircraft guns, not that we'd just bomb the source of the attacks..No skin off their backs if we do it the hard way.
Posted by: clarice | March 20, 2011 at 05:23 PM
"Mr. Obama cast the United States in a supporting, almost reluctant role..."
So 100+ Tomahawk missiles (between $500k-$1MM a pop) and a few B2 bomber runs is a reluctant role? I'd hate to see the U.S. angry. Unfortunately, in this PC world we will never see that. That's why these wars drag out. Just enough firepower to get the other side angry, but not enough to finish the job.
The good news is future Presidents can unleash the hounds without any Congressional approval. The lefties seem to love war now.
And who are these Libya "freedom fighters" we are supporting anyway?
Posted by: P Pablo | March 20, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Time for Sarah Palin to announce that this action by Obama is an "unconstitutional war," well beyond the no-fly zone that she supported, and call for the Congress to either pass an AUMF or de-fund this dog-wagging adventure immediately. She can even mention that none of the people involved in the decision have sons or daughters in the military, nevermind their own lack of military experience.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Arabs talking out of both sides of their mouths? You would think they were congressional Democrats for gosh sakes...
Posted by: Gmax | March 20, 2011 at 05:36 PM
Obama loves plausible deniability. When you’re just not that smart, you need options, not policies.
Posted by: MarkO | March 20, 2011 at 05:36 PM
Watch the UN object also. Didn't they suggest a no-fly zone?
============
Posted by: No-fly, don't bother me. | March 20, 2011 at 05:38 PM
And if you want to go all slack jawed due to a stunning display of craven behavior, look for Rep James McDermott out on the circuit, earnestly defending the Obama doctrine (if this can be called that ). He was just on Fox and kept a straight face as he plowed through the DNC talking points. Baghdad Jim McDermott.
Posted by: Gmax | March 20, 2011 at 05:40 PM
She could even imply that this lashing out at a country who isn't a threat to the U.S. is a "reckless" reaction to questions about his manhood, etc.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 05:40 PM
Obama's "days, not weeks" pledge is especially foolish given the Odyssey Dawn name. An odyssey is a long, meandering journey, not a quick in and out. Maybe OD will be followed by Odyssey Sunrise, Odyssey Morning Appears, Odyssey Coffee Break, Odyssey Morning Wanes, Odyssey What's For Lunch?, and on and on...
Posted by: DebinNC | March 20, 2011 at 05:41 PM
And his falling poll numbers, I forgot to add that. And an attempt to distract from his "catastrophic" economic policies. Etc.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 05:42 PM
Extraneus-
So bombing a major oil exporter is going to "help" his catastophic economic policies?
Posted by: RichatUF | March 20, 2011 at 05:49 PM
OK, Eureferendum @ the L!ink U!nder N!ame.
==============
Posted by: Cats with thumbs | March 20, 2011 at 05:57 PM
Baghdad Jim McDermott along with Patty Murray and Jay Inslee are total embarrassments for my state.
Posted by: glasater | March 20, 2011 at 05:59 PM
The always interesting Bruce McQuain has some troubling and pertinent questions about just exactly who authorized this action and the ramifications of the seemingly new UN "principle" it represents.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 20, 2011 at 06:05 PM
C'mon, everybody. We know why Obama ordered strikes on Kaddaffi. Since his biological father is long dead, what other pseudo-Marxist, pseudo-Islamic petty dictator is there for him to take his abandonment issues out on?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 20, 2011 at 06:09 PM
Iggy, J.E. Dyer's 'We are not in charge, folks' also at HotAir's Green Room is also very good.
==============
Posted by: Obama is happy not to be in charge. | March 20, 2011 at 06:13 PM
I'm trying to understand. According to the Arab League it's a no-no to kill a civilian with aircraft but okay if you use an AK-47?
Would a ME apologist please explain that to me?
Posted by: sbw | March 20, 2011 at 06:20 PM
So bombing a major oil exporter is going to "help" his catastophic economic policies?
Well it might serve as a distraction, which could be a good thing after all, if you're Obama.
Seriously, why is it better to overthrow Q'a'da'fi than to leave him in power? Are these rebels led by Muhammad Washington?
Protecting innocent civilians is one thing, but someone needs to explain who it is we're supporting in his place. And that someone would be Obama.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 06:21 PM
John Kerry: "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations"
Anyone doubt that Obama is a fellow "internationalist"?
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 06:27 PM
DebinNC,
Odyssey Coffee Break. Excellent!
Posted by: Barbara | March 20, 2011 at 06:30 PM
Thanks for the R2P link, Ig.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 06:34 PM
DebinNC:
You win for best comment of the day! I'm stilllaughing about. Odyssey What's For Lunch? is a classic and so true of the Mambo King Obama.
Posted by: maryrose | March 20, 2011 at 06:38 PM
RICO charges coming for the SEIU. Likely mild in comparison to what they've already gotten away with.
Ken Lewis, former B of A CEO, was more afraid of the SEIU than the SEC or Cuomo.
Posted by: Army of Davids | March 20, 2011 at 06:40 PM
Candidates.O likes oil money.He liked the 20 bil payment and wants another . will pay back with amnother tsunami.Its not like he dealt New Orleans.
Posted by: legitcharitiesonly | March 20, 2011 at 06:43 PM
--Iggy, J.E. Dyer's 'We are not in charge, folks' also at HotAir's Green Room is also very good.
==============--
It is indeed, kim.
Here's a link for anyone interested. A little more detail and a little more aggressive in its criticism of what's being done with our military and the means used to do it.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 20, 2011 at 06:44 PM
Or Sarah could claim Obama is following the Palin doctrine:
Here’s to Libya’s Freedom.
by Sarah Palin on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 6:59pm
.
It’s a little perplexing looking at the White House today. There was a statement on the horrible earthquake in New Zealand, and certainly our hearts go out to all those affected by this horrible natural disaster. But nothing on the slaughter in Libya? The protests in many places in the Middle East affect regimes that have cooperated with the U.S. on issues from peace with Israel, fighting al Qaeda, hosting our military forces, or cooperating against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Gaddafi’s Libya is different. For four decades, this tyrant has held power. Gaddafi was Osama before Osama hit the scene. He ordered the bombing of a disco in Germany to kill Americans. When he paid the price for that – after President Reagan rightly ordered retaliation – he directed his agents to blow up Pan Am Flight 103. They did, and more than 250 innocent people died. Gaddafi tried to come in from the cold in 2003 – scared by the demonstration effect of Iraq. But we should have no illusions. Gaddafi is a brutal killer and Libya – not to mention the world – would be better off if he were out of power. Now is the time to speak out. Speak out for the long-suffering Libyan people. Speak out for the victims of Gaddafi’s terror. NATO and our allies should look at establishing a no-fly zone so Libyan air forces cannot continue slaughtering the Libyan people. We should not be afraid of freedom, especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America. Here’s to freedom from Gaddafi for the people of Libya.
- Sarah Palin
Posted by: ROA | March 20, 2011 at 06:47 PM
Last link, I promise.
David Warren at RCP "We Don't Know What We are Doing"[In Libya].
May have been linked already, but worth a read if not.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 20, 2011 at 06:53 PM
"Senator Kerry was way ahead of the curve on Libya. Brown, not so much." - Blue Mass. Group
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | March 20, 2011 at 06:57 PM
Ralph Nader calling for impeachment. Run, Ralph, run!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 20, 2011 at 06:57 PM
So what is our exit stragegy?
Posted by: sbw | March 20, 2011 at 07:02 PM
The Man Who Knew Too Little.Your fighting over a call box
Posted by: Pamela Powers(not) | March 20, 2011 at 07:06 PM
Seems a total no brainer to me--if you want smart diplomacy re Libya, send for Richard Perle, promise him big bucks. Look at it this way, a guy who'll bust his ass to make the perpetrator of the Lockerbie plane-bombing look good/better will spare no effort for a government that throws trillions of dollars around like they're dimes.
For reference:
Among Libya's lobbyists
U.S. PR Firm Aiding Libya May Have Violated Federal Law
Posted by: anduril | March 20, 2011 at 07:10 PM
Gadaffi is not on the target list.
So we're not against Gadaffi...but we're also for the rebels who we don't know anything about.
WTF!
Posted by: Janet | March 20, 2011 at 07:10 PM
"WTF!" C'mon, WWJS?
Great article re the politics of recall in WI, including polling: Will Union Fight be the Democrats' Waterloo?
Posted by: anduril | March 20, 2011 at 07:15 PM
I think the Arab League is basically charging there has been a bait and switch. Nah. Not with Hillary, Rice, Jarrett at the helm with the former president looking on.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | March 20, 2011 at 07:16 PM
Of course Daffy is on the target list - he's right there, just under Scot Walker.
SBW,
Have you figured out the entrance strategy yet? I haven't. Jabbing a mad dog with a stick isn't in my copy of Sun Tzu.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 20, 2011 at 07:17 PM
Can't say I've ever agreed with Farrakhan until now. So that's something.
"Who the hell do you think you are?"
Rev. Wright must be fit to be tied.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 07:23 PM
The entrance strategy should be violations of the UN Declaration of Human Rights but, having ignored violations by its own special friends for so long, everyone knows the UN keeps that crazy uncle locked in a closet.
Posted by: sbw | March 20, 2011 at 07:28 PM
From news reports just coming out it was not a US missile that hit Daffy's compound.
Posted by: glasater | March 20, 2011 at 07:29 PM
I expect Gaddhafi to blow up a few mothers and children for the pure public relations effect.
Posted by: sbw | March 20, 2011 at 07:31 PM
SBW,
Libya received 155 UN member votes to take a seat on the UN Human Rights Council in May, 2010.
The UN is 100% trash, which explains the presence of Susan Rice and BOzo's embrace.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 20, 2011 at 07:41 PM
I'm trying to understand. According to the Arab League it's a no-no to kill a civilian with aircraft but okay if you use an AK-47?
Also acceptable are knives, C-4 (strapped to your body only), nails coated with rat poison, unguided rockets, various war gasses, and hijacked civilian aircraft.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 20, 2011 at 07:50 PM
I'm trying to understand. According to the Arab League it's a no-no to kill a civilian with aircraft but okay if you use an AK-47?
More like, it's okay to go ahead and agree with a resolution you know darn well will involve the use of force, so that you can then turn around and condemn the U.S. for using force.
Posted by: PD | March 20, 2011 at 07:51 PM
I expect Gaddhafi to blow up a few mothers and children for the pure public relations effect.
No, his shtick is to adopt the dead.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | March 20, 2011 at 07:52 PM
I really, really do not understand this:
What is baffling to me is how we can separate our "unique capabilities" from the exercise of command in using them. Are we going to have Brits or Frenchmen (or Qatarites) riding along in the AWACS aircraft? The first time I heard the new buzzword "unique capabilites," I thought of the 6th fleet flagship, USS Mount Whitney. How can our coalition partners avail themselves of its capabilities without our looking directly over their shoulder, at the very least?
I am glad I don't have to figure out how the hell to bring about this purely cosmetic and unnecessary "transition," and I would imagine that a lot of people who have trained all their lives to lead in these circumstances aren't too happy about it.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 20, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Wow! Johnny Gimble is incomparable, but Merle Haggard does some very nice semi-hot fiddling--yes, fiddling--on Right or Wrong, and doggone he's got soul.
Some bonus videos:
DAVE DUDLEY -- SIX DAYS ON THE ROAD--the pride of Spencer, WI.
Merle Haggard - That's The Way Love Goes
Posted by: anduril | March 20, 2011 at 07:56 PM
Here's what I'm trying to understand: it's OK to be a paid lobbyist--sorry, consultant--for the guy who blew an airliner out of the sky. And if you do, "conservatives" jump to your defense.
Posted by: anduril | March 20, 2011 at 07:58 PM
"U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition - probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO - "in a matter of days." "
Blow some sh*t up and high tail it out of dodge. It may not be good "strategery", but it sure sounds like fun!
Posted by: Col Kilgore | March 20, 2011 at 07:59 PM
the president is "more aware than almost anybody of the stress on the military."
Live, on Saturday Night ... it's Robert Gates!
Posted by: PD | March 20, 2011 at 08:04 PM
Were I an Arab League member, I'd be hedging my bets now, too. Khadafy may survive. And although he may act like a nut at times, I'll be he is pretty clearheaded when it comes to remembering who supported him and who didn't.
As for Obama, it's no longer a strong horse/weak horse matter. It's simply that Obama may manage to look like a horse's ass in the Libyan matter no matter whether one supports or opposes intervention.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 20, 2011 at 08:11 PM
You didn't get Osama's bit on the weak horse's ass?
Posted by: Extraneus | March 20, 2011 at 08:16 PM
Sheesh! Now Fox News is talking Daffy's possible chemical weapons with their "spy" Mike Baker.
Posted by: glasater | March 20, 2011 at 08:17 PM
DOT, the only way Gates' comment would make any sense is if a deal is already in place (i) to have some sort of European supervised buffer zone between territory controlled by the rebels and Khadafy controlled territory, or (ii) to have Khadafy leave Libya to a nice retirement somewhere. However, it also doesn't make sense that a deal is already in place. Thus, Gates' statement is incomprehensible to normal mortals as a viable policy. However, perhaps Obama, thinking himself several being levels above normal mortals, has it all worked out in his mind.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 20, 2011 at 08:21 PM
Handy radiation dose chart.
Posted by: PD | March 20, 2011 at 08:22 PM
I concede, Extraneus, that a weak horse could also be a horse's ass, So perhaps Obama is going for the weak horse/horse's ass daily double!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 20, 2011 at 08:29 PM
I think (1) is a lot more plausible than (2). Maybe that is in fact what Gates means, and our "unique capabilities" are those of actually putting live ordnance on the target.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 20, 2011 at 08:34 PM
Barack Obama on Darfur Nov 2007
He wanted “Boots on the Ground.” What happened?
Watch to the end to see his promise on not abandoning people who are getting slaughtered.
Posted by: Threadkiller | March 20, 2011 at 08:40 PM
So, here is Obama von Clausewitz's strategery as I see it:
1. Announce that Khadafy must go.
2. Fiddle and diddle on taking effective action to ensure that Khadafy goes.
3. Take action when Khadafy has established a strong enough position that Khadafy thinks he has a chance to stay in power.
4. Announce that the United States will be handing off the ball to folks who, no matter how good their intentions, are far less likely to be able to ease or intimidate, or both, Khadafy into a nice retirement.
Am I missing something? Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich couldn't have done worse. At least they probably would have babbled something about the Libyans having to solve this themselves, so that the People's Liberation Army honchos wouldn't be observing our POTUS saying a leader must go without any clue as to how to make that happen.
If I am a Taiwanese leader who (i) would prefer that the PLA not make a house call and (ii) is relying in large part on the credibility of the US to prevent such a house call, I am not happy.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 20, 2011 at 08:41 PM
heh.. If daffy had a nuclear reactor he coud vent some steam and cause a panic in the "coalition". The french and dutch high flyers would be grounded for weeks before they figured out what to do about the NBC.
(Let me be clear :) I'm only making light of what I perceive to be a very serious situation)
Posted by: scott | March 20, 2011 at 08:44 PM
I hope so, DOT. Otherwise, bgates is going to have to go back before Montezuma to find a worse North American leader.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 20, 2011 at 08:50 PM
Fukuyama, who made that big production about dissing the neocons, on Iraq, Barber, who is
like the low rent Tom Friedman, Robert Putnam is the one that surprises me the most, I guess
he's jusr a 'joiner' and Joe Nye, who tried his hand at fiction some years back, how bad
was it, don't ask, all were members of the Monitor Group, along with senior Arabist Mark Allen, who pulled a trifecta, the board of LSE, BP, and Monitor, and if one investigates
any further probably Manchurian Global
Posted by: narciso | March 20, 2011 at 09:05 PM
via Am. Thinker - Florida circuit court judge allows case to proceed under Islamic law
Posted by: Janet | March 20, 2011 at 09:09 PM
Ah the coalition is falling apart! Hillary oversold us. What can we do to hang this skunk sandwich around that mouthy woman's neck!
Posted by: Political Adviser | March 20, 2011 at 09:14 PM
I couldn't resist
Posted by: Rocco | March 20, 2011 at 09:22 PM
It's going to be a real riot if this is actually about Daffy hauling more yellowcake out of the French uranium mines in Niger.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 20, 2011 at 09:26 PM
Obama Attacks Libya, and Where's Congress?
J.B. Williams, writing for AT, lays out the case that Obama has acted unconstitutionally,
See LUN
The last two graphs:
"..Who in the U.S. Congress -- specifically in the Republican-controlled House -- is going to launch a full-scale investigation into Obama's dictatorial use of military might and begin impeachment proceedings? Who in the US Congress is going to put a stop to the growing insanity?
We have a runaway government acting against the interests of the United States and beyond its legal authority. Does anyone have the backbone to stop it and hold Obama accountable? Will there be an international war crimes trial for Barack Obama?..."
Posted by: OldTimer | March 20, 2011 at 09:28 PM
it's the end of history, narciso; either that or the end of the world or sumthin....
Extending the Obama Doctrine, we are now preparing to send expeditionary forces to Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, and Venezuela....These forces will exercise courageous restraint by using confetti bombs and launching flaming bags of dog poop in displays of overwhelming force.
6th Fleet will be under the operational command of Admiral Dimitrius Nikolapopadapolus of the Greek Navy, while overall command of the Fauxlition air forces will be exercised by Commandante Andrea Rigatolini of the Italian Air National Guard.
The operational language for all Fauxlition forces will be Amharic because the French and Americans could not agree.
No, nothing at all wrong with this cobbled together non-plan. As Obama puts our forces in harm's way he and his band of clownshoes are already headed for the exit on this one.
Posted by: matt | March 20, 2011 at 09:34 PM
WHITE HOUSE: B-b-but, what about me?
BARRY: The truth is, I'm just not all that into you. I mean, I was into you when we were dating. But after we hooked up and, well....Your're kind of overbearing. You're all, "Yah yah, blah blah...." Nag nag nag. It gets a little old. I don't even understand what it is you want.
WHITE HOUSE: What the-
BARRY: Don't get me wrong. I like the whole idea, being seen with you. But the reality of it is just... I don't know, I'm just not into you.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 20, 2011 at 09:36 PM
Ex-
Well it might serve as a distraction, which could be a good thing after all, if you're Obama.
I'd like to think that this is not a distraction from something wicked the Obama Administration is doing, but it serves as a poor distraction to rising pump prices when Libya is on tv.
Posted by: RichatUF | March 20, 2011 at 09:49 PM
The North Africa Journal
Niger Presidential Election Results: Yet another Victory for Muamar Gaddafi
Posted by: Rocco | March 20, 2011 at 09:50 PM
Maybe they could send Joe Wilson, over there, sarc, I recall when I started looking into the subject of yellowcake, Libya seemed
to be one of the main end users of the material,
Posted by: narciso | March 20, 2011 at 10:00 PM
I thought we settled this command and control issue when Black Jack Pershing who told the French to do something anatomically impossible in WW I. Even Wilson was not this feckless.
Posted by: MarkO | March 20, 2011 at 10:07 PM
There is a random "who" in there. Must be one of Horton's.
Posted by: MarkO | March 20, 2011 at 10:08 PM
Does anyone have the backbone to stop it and hold Obama accountable? Will there be an international war crimes trial for Barack Obama?..."
No and no.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 20, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Blue Demons and White Phantoms both escaped with their lives today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 20, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Yay, Another bgates sighting:
Check out item number 6 in Riehl World View post dumping on Andrew Sullivan.
Suggested new slogan for the Blogosphere: "All the bgates thats fit to print!"
Posted by: daddy | March 20, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Does anyone have the backbone to stop it and hold Obama accountable?
Dennis Kucinich. He's playing the impeachment card.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 20, 2011 at 10:22 PM
"Blue Demons and White Phantoms both escaped with their lives today." If I had better aim, I would have smashed the TV. But, my aim was no better than Singler's.
We live to sweat another day. Ol Roy got some home cooking from the clock official whose foolishness was described as "natural lag time," prompting Jay Bilas to tweet: How long is "unnatural lag time"?
Posted by: MarkO | March 20, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Prof. Jacobsen, reminded me of this fellow, on the Libyan danegeld,
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/jaccuse-libya-lobby-and-libya-firsters.html
Posted by: narciso | March 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM
My game of the weekend was Men's NIT at Conte Forum in Chestnut Hill, MA. Northwestern over BC. Apparently, this is the first time the Northwestern men have advanced beyond the second round of a postseason basketball tourney. Great game, and Northwestern is better than many of the NCAA teams.
OK, full disclosure. My youngest is a Northwestern senior who is on quarter break, and she invited me to the game with her. But trust me, the Wildcats are good! On to Madison Square Garden!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 20, 2011 at 10:29 PM
There is a random "who" in there. Must be one of Horton's.
LOL!
Does anyone have the backbone to stop it and hold Obama accountable?
Maybe Obama could be tried in one of the Sharia courts? Tried under Ecclesiastical Islamic law? Will they be courts that are obeyed or ignored?
and Dennis Kucinich is our hope? Good Lord...everything's a mess.
Posted by: Janet | March 20, 2011 at 10:30 PM
No, 'scottish law' janet, as Taylor will say in about 1900 years, 'it's a madhouse'
Posted by: narciso | March 20, 2011 at 10:32 PM
If you're still here, daddy, Deadhorse says hello.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 20, 2011 at 10:33 PM
Rocco,
Nice find on Daffy's influence in Niger and the others. I suspect that the number of mercenaries flown in may be exaggerated but even a quarter as many as reported can do considerable damage. Unsuccessful coups can be very messy and if Daffy isn't dead very soon we'll be seeing mission gallop.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 20, 2011 at 10:42 PM
A little background about the esteemed judge,
and her affiliations,
A 1976 graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School,
Sumi earned her undergraduate degree from the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. She is married to Carl A. Sinderbrand,
a Madison attorney, and has three children: Jacob, Molly
and Andrew.
link
A lifelong political activist, Jake Sinderbrand got his start as a volunteer doorknocker, and has years of experience training both volunteers and canvassing staff. Jake graduated from Macalester College cum laude with a degree in political science, specializing in American political structures. He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle.
link
Posted by: narciso | March 20, 2011 at 10:51 PM
From Powerline's John Hinderaker:
Indeed. Personally I don't think that's possible. Get a load of this from Hinderaker's post:
Is she wacked or what? I have a US flag in my home, but not on my desk and not "all over the place."
Falls in with Stephen Prothero's My Take: Israel is the new Iowa for GOP presidential hopefuls.
And this is the level of pandering that the Grand Old Party has descended to?
Posted by: anduril | March 20, 2011 at 10:53 PM
The first link comes from a 1998 bulletin, where her nomination, by Tommy Thompson, and swearing in by Justice Abramson, was announced
Posted by: narciso | March 20, 2011 at 11:00 PM
This is the link, I was referring to that didn't link
http://www.wicourts.gov/news/thirdbranch/docs/fall98.pdf
Posted by: narciso | March 20, 2011 at 11:04 PM
Janet:
I am not sure, but reading between the lines, it seems that the dispute in question was already submitted to an Islamic "judge" by agreement of the parties and he rendered a decision in favor of the Plaintiffs.
Any time a dispute is submitted by agreement to a private "decider", it is considered an arbitration. Under vanilla arbitration law, unless the arbitrator is guilty of fraudulent conduct, or there is some procedural infirmity, the arbitrator's decision will be enforced by a court of general jurisdiction. The title of the Order is labeled Order in Connection with Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Enforce Arbitrator's Award. That is the tipoff to me.
I don't think it makes any difference that the parties and the arbitrator are members of a particular religion or that the arbitration is conducted under religious rules.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | March 20, 2011 at 11:04 PM
My guess is that that corrupt woman will be reversed ere the sun sets tomorrow (or as soon as the appellate court can hear it). If not, that state has completely lost its bearings.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 20, 2011 at 11:05 PM
To be fair to Palin she does have a certain affinity for Israel because she is saddled with the outdated bible that Christians have been stuck with for a couple of thousand years.
Perhaps if she had the authorized New King Wauck version which declares the first three quarters of the traditional bible a Jewish myth and apparently tiptoes through the prodigious portions of the last quarter, the New Testament, which refer directly to the alleged myths in the first three quarters, including the words of Jesus Himself, she might become a bit more enlightened.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 20, 2011 at 11:07 PM