For The Record
Jonah Goldberg (among others) seems offended by the fact that Obama blames the situation in Afghanistan on his predecessor. Blaming Bush may be evergreen for the Democrats, but in this case, it happens to be pretty darn accurate.
by Will · December 1, 2009
Jonah Goldberg (among others) seems offended by the fact that Obama blames the situation in Afghanistan on his predecessor. Blaming Bush may be evergreen for the Democrats, but in this case, it happens to be pretty darn accurate.
Tags: AfghanistanbushJonah GoldbergObama
Will
Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.
March 25, 2015
September 4, 2016
November 18, 2018
[caption id="attachment_361266" align="alignnone" width="640"] Screengrab from WIVB Buffalo Channel 4 News[/caption]
Still a developing story, but what we know so far points to an utterly depraved act of violence at a Buffalo supermarket.
Comment →Ten people were killed and three others suffered non-life-threatening injuries and were transported to local hospitals after a mass shooting at a supermarket on Buffalo’s East Side Saturday afternoon.
The shooter was an 18-year-old white male who was heavily armed with tactical gear and was live-streaming during the mass shooting, officials said. City of Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown said the shooter is not from Buffalo and traveled “hours” from outside the area.
“This was pure evil,” Erie County Sheriff John Garcia said. “A straight-up racially motivated hate crime.”
The shooter was identified in court Saturday evening as Payton S. Gendron of Conklin, New York, about 200 miles southeast of Buffalo.
Gendron was arraigned on one count of first-degree murder without bail.
The 18-year-old will be back in court on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. for a felony hearing.
When Gendron exited his vehicle at the supermarket, authorities said, he shot four people in the parking lot. Three of them died and one is in the hospital. The shooter entered the store and opened fire on customers.
Twitch deletes shooter’s live-stream video of Buffalo mass shooting
A retired Buffalo Police officer, Aaron Salter, who was working as a security guard, shot Gendron but he was unharmed because he was wearing armor, Gramaglia said. The retired officer was shot and killed.A law enforcement source told CBS News that the gunman had a racial slur written on his weapon. The attack is being treated as a hate crime.
Erie County District Attorney John Flynn will not confirm the existence of the shooter’s manifesto. He said they believe there was a “racial component” to the attack but won’t say more.
This attack is being investigated by the FBI as a hate crime and as violent extremism.
Police officers could frame people, file bogus charges, conjure evidence out of thin air—and, in most of the U.S., they would still be immune from facing any sort of civil accountability for that malicious prosecution. Until yesterday.
---
Yesterday, the highest court in the country struck that requirement down, ruling that Thompson should indeed have a right to sue the officers at the center of his case. "A plaintiff such as Thompson must demonstrate, among other things, that he obtained a favorable termination of the underlying criminal prosecution," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. "We hold that a Fourth Amendment claim…for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence."
From THOMPSON v. CLARK ET AL.:
Held: To demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. A plaintiff need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction.
Thompson has satisfied that requirement here.
Thompson v. Clark was decided 6-3. (Alito wrote the dissent, with Thomas and Gorsuch joining.)
Comment →April 18, 2022
The Return of the Bedroom Police
May 9, 2022
Student Loan Forgiveness: Watch What Unfolds from Here
April 28, 2022
April 26, 2022
The Demise of the Big Tent Made Us Stupid
May 6, 2022
Recently comments that included the strings "zed" or "doug" were sent immediately to trash. This should be fixed now.
Well, I’m offended by Jonah Goldberg, but I guess we’ll both have to live with our respective offenses.Report
I know it’s trite by now, but What If Bush Had Done This? and constantly blamed Clinton for all his problems, starting with the 9/11 attacks? Lord knows, it would have been “pretty darn accurte,” but he didn’t. Why would Obama get a pass on such undignified behavior? If Goldberg is offended, then I’m with him. Besides it’s being offensive, it sets a precedent for future presidents, which cannot help but be divisive.The point is, all Presidents “inherit” problems from their predecessors. Adams “inherited” a crisis with France and GB from Washington, Jefferson “inherited” the Barbary Pirate situation from both Washington and Adams and so forth. What if Jefferson’s first inaugural wasn’t about
but about the problems he had “inherited?” If he had done this, I doubt we’d be here today debating Obama’s lack of taste and his overweening pride. You say that this whining is “pretty darn accurate.” Let’s see:
Senate (i.e., John “I was for it before I was against it” Kerry) report:
1. Pure speculation based on hindsight. “The complex situation would have been risky?” What risks? How would an all-out effort to “get bin Laden” have affected the overall effort to defeat the Taliban? This is not covered in Kerry’s so-called analysis but it’s the key” question any historian would ask. Just saying “we coulda we shoulda” doesn’t cut it as “analysis.”2. Kerry fails to explain why “getting bin Laden” should be such an overriding concern. Al Qaeda would have continued to exist even if he were captured or killed. In fact, nobody can be sure that he’s alive even today, when they’re raising such a hue and cry over “getting him.”3. “An entirely elective war fought for ultimately incorrect premises.” Is Ackerman referring to the WMD debacle, yet again? This is just unbelievable. The “ultimately incorrect” phrase gives the game away: another exercise in hindsight. To mount a serious critique, Ackerman (and anyone else) must deal with the incomplete set of facts that Bush had to base his decision on at the time. This is just standard for any historical analysis. Otherwise, you’re just using hindsight, otherwise known as the “historical fallacy.”
What does “elective war” mean? Can anyone really define this in a serious way, instead of just using it as a club to bash Bush? All wars are “elective.” There is always “one last thing” to do before going to war. There is always a point where decision-makers must draw the line and decide. This point is not given to them by circumstances, as the “war of necessity” phrase suggests. It is decided-upon.
The phrase “elective war” suggests a war of aggression. It suggests warmongering. This is not the case with Iraq. It is a war to protect US national security as surely as the Civil War and WWII were. I mention these wars because they were mentioned by Obama in his famous 2002 anti war speech. He said he opposed the war in Iraq because he didn’t know how long it would last or how much it would cost. On the other hand, he declared he was no pacifist because he supported the Civil War and WWII, presumably because he knows how long they lasted and how much they cost. However, using his criteria for judging the war in Iraq, if he were transported back to 1861 or 1941, he would have opposed these wars as well because at the time the length and cost of those wars were “undetermined,” to use his phrasing.
Report
Uh… I’m pretty sure the “blame Clinton” game was pretty much one of the favorite little things Goldberg et. al practiced during the Bush years, and it was implied more than once by the Bush Administration that it was the “old attitudes” that had gotten things wrong. Not to mention the whole restoring dignity to the office shtick, etc. Presidents have been blaming predecessors since time immemorial.Report
1. Aren’t you talking about Bush’s campaign?
2. If NRO was blaming Clinton during the Bush years, it doesn’t affect my argument in the least. I’m talking about Presidents blaming their predecessors. For example:
Note the passive voice and the not-so-veiled swipe at Bush. However, in the next sentence,
We get the active voice. Now it’s Obama himsel(ves) who is responsible for success in Iraq. It’s clear to anyone who pays attention that Obama “inherited” success there, but that doesn’t count.
This is just one example out of many by Obama himsel(ves). Give me some by Bush and I’ll concede the point. Of course, Presidents may try and change long-standing policies and thus refer to the past in general terms. That is hardly blaming anyone. It’s called innovation and doesn’t count.Report
Can we please please please just stop snarking on NRO posts? I mean I know sometimes you guys need to relax with some easy prey, but c’mon…this is like sending the Yankees to play in the local tee ball league.Report
I couldn’t agree more, is there anything happening today that isn’t Bush’s fault?Report