re: "February 11"

Thanks to John Brown at Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 ("particularly interested in the relationship between public diplomacy and propaganda") for the mention and the quote:

"PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

The State Department Staff at the Baghdad Embassy is Embarrassing Itself - Jeff Emanuel, redstate.com: "So the wizards at State has suddenly realized that constructing a 104-acre, $750,000,000.00 embassy complex and building up the embassy staff to 16,000 people (including 2,000 diplomats and several times more contractors), without running either by the Iraqis first, 'may have been ill advised.' [Comment by] Consul_At_Arms ... Embassies are the U.S. government representation in a foreign country. They house not only an ambassador and various State Dept. functions (consular, management, political, economic, and public diplomacy) and the activities (communication, security, etc.) necessary to support them, but various 'tenant agencies' housed along with them. Overseas, those range from the routine (IRS, FAA, GSA, military attaches and liaison/assistance officers) to the exotic (DEA, Marshal Service, Library of Congress). Much of the Baghdad mission is likely (I have no personal knowledge of this) engaged in various USAID and other development/reconstruction activities with the Iraqis." "

re: "The Media Turns On Obama, And My Head Is Spinning"

Thanks to TSB at The Skeptical Bureaucrat ("Giving my fellow Americans the view from my cubicle") for the link and the mention:

"I've been following Consul-at-Arms and cheering as he defends the Constitutional powers of Congress against the administration's interpretation dismissal of the War Powers Act."

I'd quibble about my defending Congress, exactly. I feel like I've been as critical of Congress (for not defending its Constitutional perogatives) as I've been of the executive branch for continuing to push the envelope of its own Constitutional perogatives.

Money quote(s):

"President Obama started the Libyan action with a March 21 letter to Congress that cited the requirements of the War Powers Act ("I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action") but, when the May 20 deadline for withdrawal approached, he changed his mind about those requirements.This morning, as I caught up on my reading, I saw that both the New York Times and the Washington Post have attacked the administration's position that the War Powers Act no longer applies to its military action in Libya. The Mainstream Media in a united front with CAA? I must be dreaming." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

He had to take a lie down until the dizziness passed.

re: "Bin there, Killed That..... "

Thanks to No Double Standards at Muttering Behind the Hardline ("Aut insanit homo, aut versus facit") for the mention.

Money quote(s):

"Consul Leslie Slote over at Consul at Arms II followed up with a "money quote" (as he calls them) that I'm pissed I never thought of myself:

Violence never settles anything except for those things that only violence will settle.

How hard does that line rock?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

"Let's get to it: let's not kid ourselves; the Mutterer is a man of principle. I've argued as loudly as anyone that we should not reciprocate the bad behavior of our enemies by compromising our core principles. But I was pretty steamed at the self-flagellating response of the Left to the glee average Americans expressed at Bin Laden's killing."

Thusly does NDS neatly encapsulate civilized modern man's dilemma: how to respond to and deter violence and aggression from barbarians without becoming one. It's a topic worthy of discussion and one, I should note, that serves as something of a self-diagnostic: if you're still asking the question, than you're not a barbarian yet.

"You have got to be kidding me. Mike Hayes over at "Googling God" actually believes that there's some sort of moral equivalency between Afghans dancing on the streets at the news of 9/11 and Americans' rejoicing at the death of Bin Laden.

Let's get something straight: there hasn't been a single misfortune that has befallen the United States that Bin Laden and his ilk didn't celebrate. Why it is I am supposed to show him some sort of deference simply by virtue of having died is beyond me."

Too right. Either UBL was an anomoly, someone who had so twisted the peaceful teachings of Mohammed that he was no longer truly Islamic, or he was a martyr to the cause, a holy man worthy of memorials and emulation. Answers to this question should be chosen carefully.

"Bin Laden and his ilk hate us for who we are, regardless of what we do. And they'll always concoct some conspiracy to explain it all away.

The mistake that the Bushies made was concluding that all Arabs view us this way.

And that is decidely not true, as the absence of a significant Islamic influence in the ongoing "Arab Spring" attests.

Good riddance, Osama Bin Laden. It may very well be that you were unarmed, that you begged for mercy, and that my countryman put a bullet in your eye, anyway.

Tough shit.

You had it coming."

I rather thought Bush (and his ilk, the "Bushies") went to considerable trouble to make it clear that they were not acting as if all Arabs viewed us with hate, that this was not a Clash of Civilizations, and that if we'd responded as if it was that would have given UBL exactly what he wanted.

But yes: UBL had it coming.