Monday, January 5, 2009


Where -- where? -- in the holy hell do I start with this?

The Constitution’s Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama’s administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down American power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies.

Once upon a time, congressional mandate for the declaration of war was seen as a "bulwark against ... unwise foreign commitments" -- it's funny that John Yoo/Bolton don't mention that one. Probably because the Iraq War was, in fact, a totally awesome foreign commitment.

Let us further count the dog-whistles to the Right in the very first paragraph:

- Barack Obama
- Hillary Clinton
- Legal Academics (so sayeth tenured U. Cal. Berkeley Prof. John Yoo)
- "Binding down" American power w/r/t treaties (evil, evil treaties!)
- International bureaucracies (so sayeth U.N. Ambassador John Bolton)

Also, has anyone ever used the phrase "binding down"? A quick google search indicates that it is a term of art in the world of quilting, but I can't imagine that Johnny Yoolton meant it in that sense. What, precisely, was wrong with simply being "bound"? Or maybe "tied down"? Even Swift in Gulliver's Travels -- in describing perhaps the best example of being down-bound -- didn't use that anything close to that phrase.

It's almost as if they're deliberately bending the English language to their ridiculous ends.

Or maybe they're ... well ... retarded.

If Mr. Obama were to submit either of these agreements [a nuclear test ban treaty and a land-mine ban treaty] for approval by a simple majority of the House and Senate, his actions would pose a serious challenge to American principles of law and democratic governance.

The American principles of law and democratic governance, as understood by Johann Von Booltons:

The Wise and Just Rule of President Bush > Republican Congress > President "Nobama" > Foreigners! Turrible Foreigners! > Democratic Congress > President Nobama in league with Turrible Foreigners! > Simon Cowell > The Judiciary

It's all right there in Article Eleventy-Twelve.

Global governance schemes delegate power to independent international organizations to make and enforce laws that would apply domestically, by international bureaucrats who are unaccountable to Congress, the president, American public opinion or the democratic process.

It's so crazy! It's not as though the Constitution specifically addresses the proper role of international law and treaties!

Seriously, are they aware that there are other parts of the Constitution besides Article II?

Here's the arabic numeral system as perceived by John Yoo and John Bolton:


And another thing ...

[Insert joke about John Yoo being asked about his interpretation of the Constitution]
[Insert joke about John Bolton opining about any aspect of international relations]
[Insert joke about any Bush administration figure ever being asked about democratic legitimacy]

These people are goddamn war criminals.

P.S. The only thing that keeps this from being the most ridiculous media appearance by confirmed and utter failures?

(Dear Jerome Bettis: You are from Detroit. You should be murdering this man. That is all.)