For liberals Democrats, President Obama’s ends always justify the means. “And if you listen to what Congressman Becerra was saying when he was answering your questions, he never once argued the law. He never once said, actually, these things are constitutional because X, Y, and Z. He kept saying, well, the people want this. Or this is a good thing and so, therefore, we should do it. But that’s not how it’s done. It has to be constitutional. It has to comport with the law. And the fact they can’t argue that is concerning.”
You have to wonder if in the end Obama would be disappointed if Hillary Clinton loses. This sure isn’t the greatest argument in her favor: ” I think that Hillary has been to this rodeo a bunch of times. She is in public service because she cares about the same folks that I talked to here today. As soon as you jump back into the spotlight, in a more explicitly political way, you’re going to be [criticized] like this. And she’s accustomed to it. Over time, I don’t think it’s going to make a big difference.” Is he saying she’s a has-been?
If Clinton had ended her effort to squeeze every dollar out of her fame a year or so ago she’d be in a better spot. RNC chairman Reince Priebus has a point when he says, “I don’t think flying on private jets and collecting $250,000 for a speech is considered to be hard work. And so people respect folks that earn their money and work hard and they become rich. But when you talk about being dead broke and when you try to make believe that you understand how average people live, but you made $105 million giving speeches, I think people are kind of tired of this show, quite frankly.” But she thinks she isn’t “truly well off,” so she probably won’t stop chasing the money.
The end point should be gathering the maximum amount of intelligence. In the case of the Benghazi terror suspect, House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (Mich.) has his doubts: “These are dangerous folks. If he doesn’t give us anything, and we get him to put in jail, what have we accomplished? I argue we have spent a lot of money, and we have not gained anything valuable for pushing back on terrorists around the world.”
Bad-mouthing Israel via anonymous comment pretty much ended the career of the long-in-the-tooth diplomat. “Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants nothing more to do with American diplomat Martin Indyk, who announced his resignation Friday as US special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, an Israeli TV report said Friday night. . . . It said that the Israeli prime minister’s displeasure with Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, stemmed less from the US envoy’s role in the collapsed peace talks, and more from his comments in the weeks since those talks fell apart in April. Netanyahu feels Indyk placed disproportionate blame on Israel for the failure of the US-led nine-month peace effort, overly highlighting Netanyahu’s settlement-building activity, and neglected to emphasize the Palestinian role in the collapse of the negotiations.” Read the whole thing.
Conservatives hope the recess appointment case was the beginning of the end of executive imperialism. A conservative lawyer opines: “We have an administration that’s pushing a law legally and particularly pushing the constitutional boundaries on what it can do. And the fact that the court was standing up, that even the president’s own appointees weren’t willing to rubber-stamp what he was doing I think is great progress.” Unfortunately, I suspect Obama is going to keep at this until the day he leaves office.
So much for ending wars. They have a habit of going on without us, says General Michael Hayden. President Obama “created a vision when we went to zero with the number of forces in Iraq that this was going to be OK. That the Iraqis could handle this on their own, that the moderating effect of a limited U.S. presence was no longer needed. I think that was flawed policy. And frankly, it’s hard to convince any policymaker that important policies are flawed.”
Ending our stay prematurely had huge costs. Rep. Mike McFaul (R-Tex.): “I talked to General Allen Keating, Petraeus, Ryan Crocker the ambassador, these are the experts. We don’t want this victory we had to be lost. Now we owe it to the Gold Star mothers. I think what we ought to be doing, ISIS, remember, is a number one threat to the homeland, the number one national security threat since 9/11, far surpassing the Fatah on Afghanistan. Core Al-Qaeda even calls ISIS ‘extreme’ if that gives you some perspective. But I think we need to look at two things; one, targeted air strikes against ISIS without collateral damage to the Sunnis, and number two, a diplomatic, political reconciliation with the Sunni and the Shiites.”