Rand Paul

Rand Paul to John Kerry: Why is it OK to bomb Libya but not Cambodia w/o Congress's Approval?

|

Between the sniper fire drawn a few weeks back by the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) for Defense Secretary and the kabuki theater surrounding outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testifying about Benghazi, it's easy to forget that Sen. John "Reporting for Duty" Kerry (D-Mass.) is about to start calling the shots at State.

Above is a great conversation between Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and the failed 2004 presidential candidate, who got his start in public life by (rightly) denouncing the Vietnam War in which he had served. Among the basic questions that Paul asks of Kerry: If the U.S. was wrong to bomb Cambodia without congressional authorization (and it was), then why was it A-OK for Obama to join in bombing runs over Libya?

Another excellent question raised by Paul: Why are we sending big fancy fighter jets to Egypt even as the leader of that country is going full Capt. Queeg, with a fixation on the Jews standing in for obsession about stolen strawberries?

This sort of common-sense exploration of the WTF that is U.S. foreign policy should be at the forefront of any American who gives a hell about limited, legitimate government and the Constitution.

Which helps to explain why Paul is about the only guy in the Senate making such inquiries: Most of the folks there couldn't care less about the Constution. That Rand Paul is so often alone in his line of thinking is sad and disturbing, but it's also one more reason why he is "the most interesting man in the Senate."

Hat tip via Hot Air (known as "Hot Gas" in Texas) and Allahpundit, who adds:

My one criticism of Paul here is his failure to press Kerry on his proferred excuse [about unauthorized bombing], that Obama had no time to ask Congress for action because Qadaffi was about to put thousands of Libyan rebels in Benghazi to the sword. Nonsense. Go look at the timeline leading up to the west's military intervention. Protests against Qadaffi broke out in mid-February; by February 21, Libyan diplomats were asking the UN for a no-fly zone. A day later Hillary was issuing public statements denouncing Qaddafi and by March 1 the Senate had passed a non-binding resolution — unanimously — encouraging the UN to impose that no-fly zone. It wasn't until March 15, however, that NFZ was finally approved and not until March 19 that France, backed by the U.S., began an air campaign over the country. Obama had nearly an entire month in which he could have asked for congressional approval but Kerry wants you to believe that his decision was made under some sort of emergency conditions, a la an invasion or nuclear attack, where the president had no choice logistically but to act on his own. Pitiful. He'll be confirmed with 95+ votes anyway.

If you haven't felt sick yet today, read Ed Krayewski's "4 Things You Need to Know about John Kerry."

Cheer up by reading Reason on Rand Paul.

NEXT: Clashes in Cairo Mark Two Year Anniversary of Egyptian Revolution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “the WTF that is U.S. foreign policy”.

    Indeed. I think those at the pointy end of the policy have wondered “WTF” more than once.

  2. What the hell, Nick, you know the answer to that question.

    Fuck You, that’s why.

    1. ^This…and because Obama has a D behind his name, so that makes all that he does righteous.

      1. Always check for the TEAM LABEL!

  3. All together now.

    FUCK YOU! THAT’S WHY!

    1. I thought this one was “ITS DIFFERENT WHEN OUR GUY DOES IT”?

      Is that a subset of the FYTW universe?

      1. No, both are distinct bodies residing within the same solar system, orbiting Uranus.

        1. Dwarf Moon rationalizations.

  4. Most of the folks there couldn’t care less about the Constution.

    That’s a bad mistake. The Constution is a serious disease, not to be taken lightly due to its archaic and quaint-sounding name.

    1. Original vector was old, dead white men to boot!

      1. Definitely Gram(-).

      2. Some of them even owned slaves!

    2. And it’s hard to read,

  5. What a patronising douche. Particularly loathsome is his idiotic non-response to our curly-headed boy-hero’s question around 9.30 about why the US sells arms to Egypt and Israel.

    1. Look, Obama won’t be held hostage by the Republicans, but he will pay ransom to the Egyptians and Palestinians.

      1. I meant to say Pakistanis; I guess they all look alike to me.

        no racist.

    2. “Until it’s possible not to sell arms” was part of it.

      What the fuck? It’s easy. Just don’t do it.

  6. “Look, you can be absoltuist and apply it to every circumstance,” or you can be an unprincipled dick, do whatever you want to do and then rationalize it later. That’s what I like to do; it works every time.

    1. Rule of Law? Fuck that, I’m John Kerry.

      1. He’s a little haughty and kinda French-looking.

      2. Rule of Law? Fuck that, I’m John Kerry, Bitch!

    2. “What difference does it make, anyway?”

  7. I supported what Obama did in Libya (I think it’s the only thing I ever supported him on), but I did so always under the caveat that he should have gotten congressional authorization beforehand.

    I think the the thing that bothers me the most about Obama not bothering to seek congressional authorization is that I think he almost certainly would have gotten it if he’d asked for it.

    In other words, I don’t think he neglected to seek authorization beforehand because he thought he couldn’t get it, so he’d rather ask for forgiveness than permission. I think he neglected to seek authorization because he thought it was completely unnecessary.

    A president who willfully breaks the law is less troubling to me than a president who imagines himself so high above the law that the law just isn’t even relevant to him anymore.

    1. It’s good to be king.

      1. “Hump? Or death?”

        1. Humperdink?

      2. Yeah, it’s great work if you can get it.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StJS51d1Fzg

        Honestly, if I were the king, I think I’d be a whole lot worse than Obama is, and that’s a great reason why we shouldn’t have a king.

        I’m starting to think the presidential system was a big mistake. Maybe we should have gone with the parliamentary system, like the British, instead.

        1. Honestly, if I were the king, I think I’d be a whole lot worse than Obama is, and that’s a great reason why we shouldn’t have a king.

          OK, John. Man, projection is such a bitch. You can’t be trusted with the power, therefore nobody can. I suppose that’s why we can’t have guns either.

          1. Actually, I think John is right in this case.

            Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unless you are Jesus Christ, this applies to everyone.

            1. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unless you are Jesus Christ, this applies to everyone.

              Too bad the Anti-Federalists couldn’t get people to understand this.

              The Federal government has basically become a six headed king.

            2. It doesn’t apply to me.

            3. Jesus Christ probably brainwashed his followers into representing him as a godlike, perfect and infallible dude. We don’t have any perspectives about the man outside of his committed cult members. I like the concept of Jesus but assume the reality was a bit different.

              1. 1000 years from now, visiting aliens will watch Chris Matthews video clips and think Obama was, to put it mildly, delightful.

        2. I think the presidential system was a mistake too, simply because it strikes me as inevitable that the president’s power would expand over time. The president is the head of his own branch, and no matter which party and no matter which person heads that branch, they all have one thing that they believe in common: That it’s a good thing for the president to expand his power.

          Unlike congress and the court, the president doesn’t have to contend with any disagreement from within his own branch, which means he is free to work towards the expansion of executive power in a way that congress and the judiciary can’t. Add to that the power of the bully pulpit and it becomes pretty obvious that this is a problem.

          1. The original constitution forced the president to accept as vice-president the person who received the second most votes, which would mean your opponent could act as a direct check on the power of the executive, somewhat like the Roman co-consul.

            Thanks to the 12th amendment, now we have the president’s best friend as VP, and no check at all on executive power. The states may be our only hope for a check on executive power.

            1. How exactly would the VP be a check on presidential power? All he can do is break ties in the Senate. That’s it.

              1. Actually, the VP is the presiding officer in the Senate. He could do a lot more than just break ties, if he wanted to. If he wanted to and had the political muscle, he could probably pretty much take over the Majority Leader’s current job.

                But the Teams don’t want that, nosirreebob.

              2. He can break ties in the Senate and break faces in the Oval Office

            2. now we have the president’s best friend as VP,

              Biden is as good as Obama could do for a best friend? That’s just so sad.

              1. I think the whole assassination realization was one of the reasons that they got rid of the 2nd most votes gets VP. Could you imagine Vice President Romney?

          2. Unlike congress and the court, the president doesn’t have to contend with any disagreement from within his own branch, which means he is free to work towards the expansion of executive power in a way that congress and the judiciary can’t.

            This is why it’s imperative that the other two branches insist that he tow the lion. Congress doesn’t because they are more concerned with getting reelected and the party than making sure the President complies with the Constitution. The career politician is once again the problem.

            Single term limits, with intervening votes of confidence.

            I know, I know, broken record.

          3. The president is actually a democratically elected monarch.

        3. Maybe we should have gone with the parliamentary system, like the British, instead.

          Ken, you’re a fucking idiot. Name one parliamentary country that is not based on “positive rights” and a noted love of Socialism.

          1. If you think “positive rights” and a love of socialism aren’t dominating thinking in this country right now, then you’re an idiot.

            Do the British seem to have a problem with an imperial Prime Minister? Because we have a big problem with that with our presidents.

            I think they get off easy because the behavior of the Prime Minister there is much more closely tied to the approval of parliament. There’s nothing idiotic about it.

          2. Name one republic…

        4. I’d think I’d be a great king because I’d be trying to impress other libertarians. I have no interest in bombing people or even roughing up those that disagree with me. And I probably wouldn’t even say “Because fuck you, that’s why” since I don’t even say “because I said so” to my kid. My wife wishes I would stop trying to explain everything to her when she’s being a pain in the ass.

          1. That was ALWAYS my biggest pet peeve as a child. I appreciate your parenting style.

    2. I supported what Obama did in Libya (I think it’s the only thing I ever supported him on), but I did so always under the caveat that he should have gotten congressional authorization beforehand.

      But he didn’t get authorization and you still supported him. Why would he bother to get authorization if people are just going to support him anyway. Your “principled” support means dick to him.

      1. No, I supported what he did…

        I supported what he did within the context of a theoretical debate that never happened.

        If there had been a debate within congress about whether they should have given the president the authorization to do what he did in Libya, I would have argued that we should have given it to him–with the restriction that he not commit any ground troops whatsoever.

        Since he didn’t really commit any ground troops anyway, that was great–so, yeah, I support what he did, but he should have gotten an authorization from congress beforehand.

        I support throwing OJ in jail for killing his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman, but I also think the jury should have found him guilty first. Just because I think OJ belongs in jail, though, that doesn’t mean I’m against jury trials, know what I mean?

        1. Another way to look at it, just because I believe in trial by jury, that doesn’t mean I have to pretend that OJ was innocent.

          And just because Obama ignored the Constitution, that doesn’t mean I have to pretend I don’t like what he did either.

          It’s just that trial by jury and constitutional restrictions on presidential power are also very important to me. Just because I like the outcome when somebody ignored the constitution doesn’t mean I approve of ignoring the constitution.

        2. KS: “I support what you did, Mr President, I just think you should have asked first.”
          BO: “Permission? Ain’t nobody got time for that!”
          KS: “OK, well I still support you anyway. I just think if you had asked you would have gotten approval.”
          BO: “I have the support of the American people, what more permission do I need?”
          KS: “Yeah, I know. But you still should have asked.”
          BO: “Well I didn’t, so suck it.”

          1. “And just because Obama ignored the Constitution, that doesn’t mean I have to pretend I don’t like what he did either.”

            I should have been more specific.

            I should have written:

            “And just because Obama ignored the Constitution, that doesn’t mean I have to pretend I don’t like what he did [in this one instance] either.”

            Try to think of it this way: if Obama got rid of all federal laws against marijuana tomorrow–would you be against it if he did it by executive order and without consulting Congress?

            Me? I’d like the outcome, but I’d think he should have consulted Congress anyway. …since I’m not fan of an imperial presidency.

            If he got rid of the EPA, the NLRB, and both the income and capital gains tax by executive fiat tomorrow, I’d be real happy about those outcomes, too. Still, I’d think he should have consulted Congress.

            1. Either you like this system of government or you don’t. If you just want the things you like done, regardless of how they get done, then I suspect the mode of government doesn’t really matter to you. Of course, that is right up until someone starts using those same methods to get things that you don’t like done. The “what’s good for one is good for all” rule is usually what keeps things civil.

              1. Jesus $park?, that’s not what hes saying at all.

                You can agree with the action taken (which I don’t BTW)and still adamantly disagree with how it was taken.

                I don’t mean to put words in Ken’s mouth, but, “I agree with the action taken, but I think the President should be impeached for not following the Constitution.”

                This isn’t in any way out of line or hypocritical.

                1. You can agree with the action taken (which I don’t BTW)and still adamantly disagree with how it was taken.

                  Sorry, but when it’s the ruler of your nation there should be another standard. I like what the President did but not how he did it is one thing, I like what the President did even though it was illegal is something else altogether. If you’re going to have a system of laws, then everybody needs to follow the fucking things, or else. If you’re not going to uphold those laws, then get rid of the fucking things. Especially since the justification for any particular action is based on precedent.

                  1. Respectfully, I put it to you that your interpretation is part of the problem. With your all or nothing focus, you force people to choose sides without regard to adherence to the Constitution.

                    You either agree with the president (we should bomb Libya) or you don’t. You leave no room for, “we should bomb Libya but not before complying with the Constitution.”

                    They are actually two separate issues and should be treated as such.

                    And, IMO, bombing Libya without Congressional approval has been the most egregious act this President has committed. CLEARLY an impeachable action, and with the exception of Rand…crickets.

                    1. You either agree with the president (we should bomb Libya) or you don’t. You leave no room for, “we should bomb Libya but not before complying with the Constitution.”

                      It sounds like you might be misunderstanding my position. Here are the choices as they should be IMO:

                      1. We should bomb Libya but not before complying with the Constitution.
                      2. We should not bomb Libya.

                      That’s it, those are your two choices. If you then go on to say that it’s good to bomb Libya even though we didn’t comply with the Constitution, then you are the one implicitly supporting an extra-Constitutional action. If you have a law, defined as the supreme law of the land, then it has to be followed or it’s worthless. The first time it’s not followed sets precedent for the future. It shouldn’t matter whether or not you approve of the outcome.

                      Now, if you want to scrap the whole pile of laws and start over, I’m with you. If you want to go through the list and just start crossing out ones that shouldn’t be laws, you’ll get some support for that too.

              2. “Either you like this system of government or you don’t.”

                What are you–five years old?

                There isn’t anything in the world that simple.

                1. There isn’t anything in the world that simple.

                  Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Or should I start calling you Tony? Do you or do you not accept the government we have and the laws the it must follow?

    3. In other words, I don’t think he neglected to seek authorization beforehand because he thought he couldn’t get it, so he’d rather ask for forgiveness than permission.

      Nope. Its the same reason Bush didnt ask for a Declaration of War against the Taliban after 9/11. He could have gotten that easily. But if he did, it sets precedent. And then he cant go into Iraq without one.

      The Imperial Presidency cant grovel before the peons in Congress.

      1. That makes sense.

    4. Let me ask you a question. Why did you support him on Libya? I mean, for the life of me, I can’t see what possible benefit accrued to America from putting our blood and treasure on the line. If anything it’s been a negative, replacing a neutered dictator with a question mark.

      1. Bill Dalasio| 1.25.13 @ 9:55AM |#
        “Let me ask you a question. Why did you support him on Libya?”

        I don’t know how to find the threads on it, but one reason (I swear!) is that Ken said the war would give the US street cred with the Ahab Doe.
        After that, I sort of lost interest in reading Ken’s ‘reasons’.

        1. That’s oversimplified, but it’s part of it. It was about root causes for terrorism. Either we get on the right side of history–or we continue to suffer terrorism and all sorts of other problems from the Arab street and the Muslim world.

          Vicious dictatorships like those in Libya are a big part of the reason we have the problems with terrorism we have. Things weren’t about to get better until people like Ghaddafi were gone, and I think him being gone was in the best interests of U.S. security.

          Throw in that we don’t have to commit any U.S. troops whatsoever and have next to no commitment to what happens in the aftermath–and Libya looks like a great deal to me.

          So long as we commit no ground troops whatsoever…

          What we should do is one question–whether we should have done it without congressional approval is another question entirely, and I oppose the president waging war without the consent of Congress.

          1. With all due respect, Ken, were “vicious dictatorships like those in Iraq” a big part of the reason we have the problems with terrorism we have?

            I kind of bought into that one. I figured out it wasn’t really true. The same thing’s going to pan out in Libya, I suspect.

            The reality is that we hadn’t had a terrorism problem from Libya for more than 20 years. Now? Who the hell knows? I think we can say a lot more confidently that we wouldn’t have a terrorism problem out of Libya if we minded our own damned business.

            1. Agree Bill.

              Terrorists don’t attack Switzerland.

              1. It’s funny you cite Switzerland. They were almost precisely what was going through my mind when I was making the comment. In a way, Ken’s thesis would apply to them much more than us. They can be some of the more cold-bloodedly mercenary businessmen out there. The (traditional) Swiss response to the situation in Libya would have sounded something like “We know those guys you’re fighting are bastards. We know you’re probably bastards, too. We don’t care. It’s none of our business. We’re here to buy oil. We’ll deal with either or both of you.”

          2. My God!! The absolute stupidity of this is amazing! Almost all “terrorism” of the last half century in Western Europe and the ME was/is instigated/controlled by US/NATO intelligence. Read a book, fer chrissake! Neither Rush Limbaugh nor NPR are going to tell you about Operation Gladio. This is a huge problem with libertarian foreign policy – it is entirely based on principle and devoid of facts. The “facts” it uses are only those of the opposing “official” narratives and as such stay “safely” inside the paradigm. Here’s a clue from Ayn Rand: If the result (intervention) seems to follow from the official narrative (widely reported “facts”) and contradicts the principle (of non-intervention), check your premises! (ie, the “facts” aren’t facts).

        2. Oh, goodie! Street cred in the Arab world! Yeah, that’s worth our blood and treasure!

    5. I supported what Obama did in Libya

      Fuck you.

    6. “I love the smell of predator drones in the morning!”

  8. The lovely folks at TP (for my bunghole) think asking a question is a “conspiracy theory”.
    http://thinkprogress.org/secur…..?mobile=nc

    STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!

    1. “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?” – Rand Paul

      My God! The man is a raving lunatic!

      1. According to Michael Smerconish,the syndicated radio dude, Rand Paul is a political opportunist who asks these kinds of questions so he can whoop up his base and get lots of contributions.
        While it is certainly true that every politician is always currying favor with his supporters, is Rand Paul asking the right questions or just grandstanding. I lost some respect for Smerconish when he supposed the latter.

        1. Unfamiliar with Smerconish, but why couldn’t he be doing both? It’s an odd question, as this quality of getting in legitimate digs while maintaining mainstream appeal is much of what makes Rand Rand.

          1. Smerconish is a castrated faux “conservative” employed in the MSNBC brothel of cross eyed, ugly, or mumble mouthed conservatives. A little bald man with thick glasses who shows his independent nature by attacking anyone who criticizes Democrats in power.

    2. The comments are nauseating.

      1. Paranoid, delusional, uninformed, yet violently believe that their’s is the only sane opinion. I like the guy that says everyone from Kentucky is a bigot and doesn’t see a problem with that. Talk about your cognitive dissonance.

      2. Holy friggen crap those guys are idiots.

        My favorites have to be the ones where they call the other side delusional conspiracy theorists and then spout off their own nonsense about 9/11 being a cover-up. One thing to disagree, but talk about the crow calling the raven black.

        1. Yeah, to ask awkward questions and suggest wrong-doing when Building 7 collapsed seven hours after the towers after NOT being hit by a plane, that’s just crazy talk.

          To wonder why it takes less than 20 min to scramble AND intercept Payne Stewart’s plane and yet the heretofore unheard of FOUR hijacked planes at once takes over an hour to scramble ANY fighters is just paranoia.

          The list is endless. And I mean that literally. I could start typing and never stop. Read a book, fer chrissakes!

    3. I guess in their delusional world only Republicans procure and transfer arms in a questionable manner. The comments are instructive in their servile pandering to power.

  9. Good to see John Kerry is still windsurfing these days…

  10. Kerry calls withholding aid to a terrorist-harboring country that has jailed one of its citizens for helping capture the world’s most-wanted terrorist “draconian.” WTF???? First of all, we can’t afford any foreign aid since we are already bankrupt and over $16 trillion in debt and running $1 trillion deficits, you f’ing moron!!! Secondly, we certainly can’t afford to give money to terrorist harboring/supporting countries!!! And sending arms to Egypt is also insane. This guy has always been a hypocritically self-righteous jackass and always will be. He’s not fit for Secretary of State but I am sure he will be confirmed just like the incompetent Hilary Clinton.

    1. Yes, it’s “Draconian” not to give the Pakis our money.

      What’s the word for the Pakis harboring and protecting Bin Laden, ringed by multiple army bases?

  11. Speculation is starting to go around now that the real reason that Kerry is being made S.o.S. is so that he can kill off the Keystone Pipeline and take all the political heat for doing so instead of Block Yomomma.

    1. Actually, the person they are probably trying to protect isn’t Obama, who won’t ever run for anything again.

      It’s Hillary, their leading contender for 2016.

      1. If the Democrats were smart, they’d run Gillibrand. Not that I’d like that, but it would be more likely than Clinton or Biden to get them over the top, probably.

      2. Hillary won’t run. Doesn’t have the health for it. She’ll be 69 in 2016, and let’s face it, she’s no Ron Paul, health-wise.

  12. Rand Paul is on more solid ground in this Kerry questioning than he was with his comments on firing Hillary Clinton for not reading all of the State Department’s cables.

    1. So, cast concrete grounds for Kerry, as opposed to solid rock for Hillary?

      Seriously, why on earth should the head of a department walk scot-free after a galactic-level fuckup like Benghazi?

      1. galactic-level fuckup like Benghazi?

        I suspect Benghazi wasn’t quite the fuck-up people are alluding to. All embassies receive threats and they all ask for more security, and enough security to cover all requests doesn’t, and shouldn’t, exist. Shit happens.

        My problem with Benghazi, was that the administration lied about it for two weeks after the fact, hoping it would go away.

        Politically speaking, and strictly from the POV of winning the election, this is where the Republicans FAILED. Their focus was getting to the bottom of what happened rather than attacking the failed cover-up. Obama could have been shown to be the piece of shit he is and, quite likely, Romney would be in the White House.

        Remember the last foreign policy debate? The criticism was that they agreed on everything. Can you imagine if Romney had pounded Obama’s head against the wall all night by exposing him as a bald faced liar? Opportunity lost.

        1. Two weeks? They’re still lying about it even now. I think they’re trying to mask the smell of roadkill skunk by covering it with bullshit.

    2. …for not reading all of the State Department’s cables.

      Well, other than the fact that he specifically denied that that was his expectation in the question, sure.

      Look, Clinton was Secretary of State, the chief operating executive of the Department of State. As such, she should be held accountable for the operations of her organization. No one expects her to “read every cable”. But, it damned well makes sense to expect her to ensure that her organization is one where requests from a war zone for increased security get heeded.

      1. Look, Clinton was Secretary of State, the chief operating executive of the Department of State. As such, she should be held accountable for the operations of her organization.

        She won’t be held accountable anymore than James Baker was concerning the crap that led to the invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War. If a sitting president has to fire or otherwise censure his SoS, it is as much a reflection on himself and his own judgement.

    3. TycheSD| 1.25.13 @ 9:52AM |#
      “Rand Paul is on more solid ground in this Kerry questioning than he was with his comments on firing Hillary Clinton for not reading all of the State Department’s cables.”

      Nope.
      She is the head of that agency. She is not expected to read every com. She *is* expected to have a staff which does so and report to her on the important ones.
      So he was right. She is at best a prevaricator and an incompetent manager who really should have ‘taken responsibility’ by being fired on the spot.

      1. I’m sure this same person would (correctly) claim that Bush was totally responsible for the intelligence failures that led to the Iraq war. Bush was obviously too lazy to do advanced intelligence data analysis.

    4. “Rand Paul is on more solid ground in this Kerry questioning than he was with his comments on firing Hillary Clinton for not reading all of the State Department’s cables.”

      WTF? You have a extraordinary amount of faith in in government if you believe (assume) that not reading cables is at the heart of the colossal fuck up.

      You know, during Vietnam McNamara was pretty much bogged down with paperwork, too. Would you like to pimp for him as well?

  13. “But when you have 10,000 people about the slaughtered and time is a factor….”

    Does Kerry not see that this rationale is just going to lead (and has led) to Presidents making exaggerated claims about the urgency or danger of a situation so that they can sidestep Congress? To use his own example, there is no proof that Gadaffhi was going to slaughter the entire city.

  14. Because this is the Senate, none of them will know to ask why the facts of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflict of 2008 were completely disregarded when the Graham-Sheehan resolution passed unanimously. This also means we’ll go at least four years before anyone at State even gets a clue that NATO is too damn big and obsolete already, or that maybe some parts of the world are better off under the CSTO or comparable regional pacts.

  15. I’ve actually spent a weekend at a posh spa in Tucson, Miraval, at the same time as John and Teresa Heinz Kerry, and gone to a fundraiser where his little “African American” heiress wife was the guest of honor, and my first thought about FrankenKerry’s appointment is – “Do I have to look at that face for 4 years?!”

    1. Could be worse. You could be a foreign minister or a translator who has to be in close quarters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.