C'mon Glenn, fighting the last war doesn't help anyone if you are going to give a pass on the media today.

That's rather the point, you walking afterbirth. The MSM's willingness to buy everything the Bush Administration was selling about Iraq and Hussein and repeat it all ad nauseum, its been left so barren of creditability at this point that it couldn't claim water is wet without it being suspect. In the process it has ceased to serve the American people in any meaningful way and contributed to the country getting into the current quagmire in Iraq (much like your own giving of aid and comfort to the enemies of the Republic).

In short, any 'report' it provides about Iran, Russia, and the color of the sky - particularly from 'unnamed' or 'Administration' sources - is unlikely to be believed. This won't stop worse mistakes from being made by the Administration, but it will make it all the harder for the American public to ever trust again.

If you're fine with such a state of affairs, I wish you luck and hope you were paid enough for your soul.

Article I.8.14

Congress shall have Power...

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

It can be argued this allows Congress to manage the armed forces under any and all circumstances by passing new "Rules...and Regulations" upon the conduct of armed forces; to date, the only exercise of this authority has been the creation of the Code of Military Justice. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, commands those forces within this framework and not in the moral/regulatory vacuume Goldfarb appears to envision.

Long time readers my remember the unlamented Bart unsuccessfully arguing against this interpretation of the above passage. I concede it has never been tested in Court at any level, but then neither has the whole 'Unitary Executive' meme.

My point is that Goldfarb either ignores or is simply ignorant of the full range of Congress's authority in this arena. True, it is authority Congress has exercised only in a limited fashion and for very practical reasons to date, but it is there nonetheless.

I'm pretty sure that the previous administration bombed Bosnia and Iraq into "submission" with nary a congressional vote. East Timor, or Haiti possibly? No? Congress didn't authorize Korea or Vietnam either.

There was no US air campaign mounted against the government of Bosnia-Herznegovnia.

"Operation Desert Fox" was undertaken in 1998 in reaction to inspections reports that that Hussein regime was attmepting to reconstitute banned weapons production facilities, and did not involve the introduction of new US units. It also was undertaken under the aegis of pre-existing authorizations against the Hussein regime.

No US forces were involved in either INTERFET or UNTAET in East Timor.

US armed forces personnel - primarily engineers and support staff - were not equipt for armed engagement in Haiti and were under very strict ROE to avoid any such conflict, hence their withdrawl.

While Congress did not declare war against North Korea for its invasion of the south in 1950, it fully supported (both rhetorically and materially) the Truman Administration's stance against it.

Congress did pass the Gulf of Tonkein Resolution, which authorized expanded US involvement in the Vietnam conflict; in hindsight, there was little appreciation for the complexity of the conflict involved and the 'incident' that prompoted the resolution's passage was subject to controversy.

Clear enough, you unshat placenta?

The Administration has already done the worst damage it could to both the government and society short of a nuclear launch against US soil:

What they haven't destroyed, they've left commanded by and seeded with unqualified antigovernment hacks.

What they haven't undermined, they've left completely underfunded.

What they haven't discredited, they've so demonized that trust is all but impossible.

Doubtless all the evidence - material and electronic - still exists somewhere and can be recovered. The question becomes will it make any difference?

Nobody trusts them, everybody acknowledges they're a corrupt bunch of crooks, and the full damage they've done will take years to undo.

The worst of it is the principles, for all their crimes, will possibly get away unpunished. One can only hope the new Democratic majority will extract at least some sanctions upon them. One hopes.

Simple question:

What criminal penalties will White House staff face if it is learned they did indeed deliberately destroy records and recordings sought by Congress in this or any matter?

Again, a simple question:

What kind of criminal penalties are possible if indeed its found the White House staff deliberately destroyed records and recordings they were directed to preserve?

Fines? Jail time? How much of either/both?

How about this:

Presuming it can be proven Administration staff did in fact deliberately destroy recordings and records they were legally mandated to preserve, doing so at the direction of the Office of the President itself, would this rise to the level of genuine "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" necessary for Impeachment?

Shorter version: is this the legal straw that breaks the camel's back?