Archive for 2025

ED MORRISSEY: ‘We Came, We Saw, He Died:’ Dems’ Breathtaking Hypocrisy On War Powers.

After last night’s strikes on Iran, Democrat politicians reached screeching levels of hypocrisy over Donald Trump’s decision to act rather than wait for an Iranian nuclear weapon deployment. Chuck Schumer demanded action from Congress, as did Hakeem Jeffries. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led calls for impeachment. Practically every Democrat on Capitol Hill — with the notable exception of John Fetterman — rushed to promote their “authoritarian” narrative about Trump.

All of this venting reveals very short memories on the port side of Capitol Hill. Fourteen years ago, they couldn’t get enough of presidential strikes on a nation in the very same region. Remember Hillary Clinton’s chortling over the fall of Moammar Qaddafi and the role she and Barack Obama played in it? “We came, we saw, he died,” she raved to Leslie Stahl after a joint US-EU bombing campaign decapitated Qaddafi’s regime, and left a failed state in its wake:

In March 2011, Obama ordered a series of military strikes on regime targets in Libya, not because of a clear and present danger to US security or assets, but because of a “responsibility to protect” doctrine promoted by Samantha Power. The Qaddafi regime was brutally suppressing dissent at the time, as Qaddafi had done for decades, but Qaddafi had also cooperated with the West on nuclear non-proliferation. Nevertheless, Obama and the Left wanted Qaddafi gone, and without going to Congress conducted military attacks with the express purpose of collapsing his regime in favor of the rebels in and around Benghazi — a bitter irony, in the end.

Obama never even bothered to formally report the action to Congress, as required under the War Powers Act, with the lame excuse that he ordered the strikes to support the action led by NATO. At the time, Harold Koh argued that the War Powers Act didn’t apply because of the limited nature of the conflict — which had been going on for three months at that point — and the administration’s interpretation of the word “hostilities” in the act. As long as US ground troops weren’t involved, Koh argued, the president had full authority and no responsibility to notify Congress at all, Koh argued.

Nancy Pelosi is in full “past performance is no guarantee of future results” mode:

The Squad is similarly Big Mad at – checks notes – Trump preventing Ayatollah Khamenei from acquiring a nuclear weapon:


As for the rest of us:

Flashback: The New York Times, January 24th, 1981:

Bruce W. German, one of the freed hostages, said today that some of his colleagues were having more problems than others in adjusting. ”They showed us videotapes of the embassy takeover,” he said, ”and some of the group simply would not look at them.”

Mr. German, from Rockville, Md., was the budget officer at the United States Embassy in Teheran. He described what it was like to be in the embassy on Sunday, Nov. 4, 1979, when the Iranian militants broke in.

”I was working in the basement of one of the buildings in the compound,” he said. ”Sunday is just another working day in the Islamic world. We could hear the crowd yelling and cheering. Then someone came in and told us we’d better move upstairs to a safer location. We barricaded ourselves in but it didn’t make any difference. We had to let them in or they would have torn the whole place down. That first day was the closest I’ve ever come to total terror.”

Asked if he considered resisting or escaping, Mr. German replied, ”When there is a gun being cocked in your ear, you don’t have many options.”

Would Return ‘in a B-52’

Mr. German, 44 years old, said he believed that the hostage crisis could make life difficult for other diplomats. ”There is just no way you can make an embassy safe from half a million angry people,” he said. Mr. German added that he would never take a foreign post where new security measures, now being planned, were not in effect. As for Iran, he said he would return there – ”only in a B-52.”

Today of course, the current iteration of the New York Times is in full “better dead than rude” mode:

UPDATE:

MORE: “Suddenly we know what a woman is?” Caleb Hull tweets

OPEN THREAD: Ring out the weekend.

JOE HILDEBRAND: Baited by the bauble: How the outrage-obsessed left ended up backing Iran.

For an activist class famous obsessed with being “on the right side of history” and who love to condemn others for “the company you keep”, it is a masterclass in hypocrisy that would be ingenious if it wasn’t so dopily unwitting.

It is obvious to everybody – except them — where I am going with this. The activist left has been so consumed by its hatred of Israel and Donald Trump that it has ended up on the side of Iran.

And not even just Iran, but the Iranian regime who the Iranian people themselves despise for decades of brutal oppression.

This is a government that is almost cartoonishly evil and yet somehow the most self-declaredly politically astute minds on the internet have been effortlessly goaded into backing it or its interests simply on the basis that if Israel and Trump are against it then they must be for it.

This might come with disclaimers that they don’t support the regime – the old “I’m not a racist but …” — or be couched in some pretence of principle but it amounts to the same thing.

If forced to choose between Israel and Iran or Trump and Iran, these guys are going all the way with the Ayatollah.

Their embrace of Iran is a vestige of the Obama years, when Obama did everything he could to facilitate a nuclear-armed Iran as a counterweight to Israel in the Middle East. But this reactionary impulse in general among the left has been prevalent for a long time: Tevi Troy: Mastering data before Google: Remembering the legacy of Ben Wattenberg.

Wattenberg did not just complain. He tried to offer the Democrats a way out: Democrats “will serve their country and their party better if they acknowledge that their real problem — which is the issues they have come to represent — than they will by trumpeting a phony one, that television did them in. A wrong diagnosis yields a wrong remedy.” He also warned Democrats to avoid what he called “the Reagan trap”: “Reagan said, several million times, that government is not the solution — it’s the problem. Many Democrats took the bait. If Reagan said government was so very bad, and Reagan was such a silly fellow, then Democrats must therefore say government is so very good. Trap snaps! Republicans win the White House.” This dynamic sure sounds a lot like how Democrats deal with our current president — and Wattenberg would have liked the alliterative sound of “the Trump trap.”

As Glenn concluded his latest Substack: Five Takes on Bombing Iran.

I do think the Democrats attacking this action are once again on the 20% end of an 80/20 issue.

Iran, as I mentioned above, seems to be an example of the “irrational regime hypothesis,” in which the actions needed to achieve internal power in a regime are at odds with the actions needed to succeed in the outside world. (World War II Japan is a classic example.) But it looks as if the Democratic Party today is another such irrational regime, in which the actions needed to move up the ladder with internal activists and donors are counterproductive in the larger world.

It generally takes a big shock to overcome this dynamic once it’s in place. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did it for the Japanese. The Israeli/American air campaign may do it for Iran. I have no idea what might turn around the Democratic Party.

It’s going to take more than losing another election, though.

In the meantime though, their reactions this week will be astounding to watch:

WWIII BEGAN WHEN KAREN BASS GOT HOLD OF A NUCLEAR WEAPON:

“Closely monitoring” seems to be the talking point du jour among leftist politicians throughout North America today.

(Classical allusion in headline.)

WELL, I’M GLAD WE CLEARED ALL THAT UP:

ROGER KIMBALL: What Trump’s Critics Still Don’t Understand About Iran.

We are assured that it’s not the group that calls itself an Islamic State because our political leaders and our media have told us so. It’s the same with Boko Haram. They regularly slaughter Christians, women and children included. Spokesmen for Boko Haram say that they represent Islamic teaching, but no: our leaders have assured us that that is not the case. “No religion,” said Obama, “condones the killing of innocents.”

Has the former president contemplated the glorious history of Islam and the glittering deeds of Mohammed? We have it on the highest—and for Muslims, the only—authority that the Prophet regularly slaughtered innocents. Consider, to take just one example, the siege of Medina in the year 627, then home to a Jewish tribe. After a couple of weeks, the inhabitants surrendered unconditionally. Mohammad then had the 600-800 men butchered and sold the women and children into slavery.

“We are not at war with Islam,” our leaders tell us. “We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

The impolitic question is, where are all those unperverted Muslims? In the common rooms of American universities? Maybe. In our cities and suburbs? Perhaps. But I think we can agree that it is not (to make an arbitrary and woefully incomplete list) the people behind such actions as

  • The 9/11 terrorist attacks
  • The Bali nightclub bombing
  • The Ft. Hood “workplace violence” event
  • The London tube and bus bombings
  • The Madrid train bombing
  • The Boston Marathon carnage
  • The Charlie Hebdo and Jewish supermarket slaughters in France (“folks shot in a deli” was how Obama described the latter)
  • The Danish shootings by another “Allahu Akbar”-shouting chap.

Islam, or a perversion of Islam? At some point, as Hillary Clinton might put it, what difference does it make? As we contemplate the future of Iran, I would suggest pondering the possibility that, even if “we are not at war with Islam,” Islam may well be at war with us.

New York’s potential next mayor is quite concerned about the safety of New Yorkers — living in Fordow, apparently:

Mamdani’s appearance tomorrow night on Colbert will be a brilliant folie à deux of doubletalk and obfuscation:

UPDATE: Here’s one of many topics Colbert won’t be bringing up with Mamdani:

MY LATEST SUBSTACK ESSAY: Five Takes on Bombing Iran.

As always, if you enjoy this essay, please consider taking out a paid subscription.

JOHN HINDERAKER: Russia Confesses. “Well, there you have it. The issue is not electricity, it is the ‘future production of nuclear weapons,’ which ‘now we can say. . . outright.’ So our military strike was fully justified.”

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES:

 

CHRIS BRAY: The Performativity Crisis.

….let’s talk about Thomas Hart Benton and Andrew Jackson. The two men tried to kill each other, and came pretty close. For the rest of his life, Jackson carried the ball from Benton’s pistol in his body. If you’ve never read about their street brawl, which was predicated by talk of dueling but didn’t work like a duel at all, read an account here. There were pistols and daggers and a horsewhip, and Benton made a public show of breaking Jackson’s sword over his knee as Jackson’s friends hauled his bloodied and semiconscious body off the street.

Then, years later, when Jackson showed up in the Senate, where he was seated next to Benton, they shook hands and forged a productive political alliance. 1.) Savage street brawl, 2.) near-death gunshot wound, 3.) but anyway.

So.

JD Vance called Alex Padilla by the wrong name, and Padilla is a broken man. He’s in

    pain

. Screenshot, and note that Jonathan Capehart asked Padilla how the emotional trauma of recent events had changed him as a person.

Well. Plus:

I should loudly mention here, because Drucker mostly doesn’t, that she works in academia and in Chicago. There’s no manliness in her social sphere, and so she’s pretty sure she’s describing America.

Because I’m nearing the end of a long road trip with a bunch of campgrounds in it, I can tell you, first of all, that there are men outdoors everywhere, with women and children, acting like husbands and fathers. It’s noticeable, and it feels like time travel. I’m not describing machismo; I’m describing normalcy, moms and dads and families. Personal to Rachel Drucker: Spend a week camping in Montana, then try again. The space you occupy matters. If there’s no masculine energy in the spaces you occupy, try a different one.

Indeed.

QUESTION ASKED AND ANSWERED: Many Have Tried to Fix Penn Station. Can Trump Get the Job Done?

Events this weekend may allow Trump to accelerate the tearing down process of rebuilding the station exponentially: