Weakest, least effective speaker in the history of the House.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) defended his chamber against charges of inaction Wednesday, suggesting that the Democratic-controlled Senate is the ...
It appears that Republicans have blocked their last judicial nominee and Harry Reid is now ready to employ the nuclear option.
Via Greg Sargent:
Senator Harry Reid appears set to go nuclear — before ...
Via regular contributor E.A. Blair...
On this past Sunday’s Meet The Press, Representative Michael J. Rogers (R-MI-8) made the following statement:
"Here's the problem, you have 15 percent of the population that ...
Nothing short of another war in the Middle East will satisfy the bloodthirsty needs of John Bolton and his neocon cronies.
On the November 25 edition of Fox's America's News HQ, Former Ambassador to the ...
Why am I not surprised by this?
As the nation mourns the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, conservative media figures have attempted to appropriate his legacy and attribute to ...
It's gotten way past fun and games and par-for-the-course politics. Blatant abuse of the filibuster rule by Senate Republicans is forcing Harry Reid's hand.
As expected, Senate Democrats brought Cornelia ...
After his two terms as President of the United States, Bill Clinton started The Clinton Foundation with a focus on climate change, global health, economic development, religious and ethnic conflict ...
They're total idiots.
Leaders of the Republican establishment, alarmed by the emergence of far-right and often unpredictable Tea Party candidates, are pushing their party to rethink how it chooses nominees and ...
Now that a federal appeals court has reinstated most of Texas' Draconian abortion law, Hillary's statement defending reproductive rights and family planning takes on an even greater significance. One third ...
On the November 25 edition of Fox’s America’s News HQ, Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton criticized the deal as ”abject surrender” to the Iranians. Bolton claimed sanctions “were never going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons anyway” because” sanctions need to be administered by a living breathing president,” and in Bolton’s mind, Obama isn’t capable of success on this front. Bolton added that we must accept one of two propositions; a nuclear Iran, or support Israeli airstrikes.
Kristol, Krauthammer and the rest of the usual suspects are all saying the same, more or less. No degree of diplomacy on the part of President Obama will satisfy the chickenhawks because their only option in dealing with Iran (and every other foreign policy issue) is annihilation.
As for John Bolton, there has never been a war he did not love…as long, of course, as he was not personally involved.
Bolton supported the Vietnam War but enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard to avoid being sent overseas, and consequently did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book “I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy.
These people make it so easy to despise them in every way possible.
Burning question of the day: What led President Obama to go to Congress to ask for authorization to take action on Syria? Why did he not, as both he (with Libya) and former presidents had done, simply not exert his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief and order a military strike on Assad and his regime? Why create another layer of complexity and source for criticism on what was already a sensitive issue?
President Obama could have acted out on his own and bypassed Congress altogether. He did not. Why?
One possible reason is that Obama, like most Americans, was not interested in military action of any kind – in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet. He was also aware that Congress, in all of its obstructionist ‘wisdom’, would most likely refuse to grant him authorization.
a) Obama avoids an unwanted war in the Middle East.
b) He gets to keep (sort of) his tough guy image.
c) Congress gets the blame.
Smart politics but here’s another possible explanation. What if President Obama really does believe that something has to be done in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. By taking the matter to Congress he is getting political cover in the event that a military strike does not go as planned. In addition, by doing so, Obama is creating further division in an already fractured Republican party where a civil war has been brewing for years. Asking Congress to authorize military action in the Middle East could only further inflame tension between the ridiculously insane Tea Party caucus and John McCain’s neocon wing of warmongers. And let’s not leave out the fact that many Republicans who would normally jump at any reason to go to war are now more reluctant to do so given that they’ll have to declare publicly that they are on the same side of an issue as the Socialist/Muslim-in-chief. Obama is forcing them to declare a position.
As plausible as the above are for explaining the thinking behind Obama’s gambit, there’s yet another…and the one I favor. This one comes compliments of David Corn.
During the 2008 campaign, he [Obama] declared, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
In Libya, Obama did not act in sync with his campaign statement. But in that instance, past and present Obama aides have contended, the president had only two days or so to mount a strike (with European and Arab allies) to prevent a possible slaughter of Libyan civilians. So Obama sidestepped his previously held view, put that particular principle on hold—and took the hit.
This time around, as Obama has pointed out, he does not have to move quickly to thwart an imminent threat. Consequently, he has had the chance to proceed according to constitutional rules (as he sees them). “I think it was pretty clear to him,” says a former senior White House official, “that if he blew past Congress this time, that would be it.” That is, the idea of joint executive-legislative responsibility for war would be trampled so far into the ground it could remain buried for years to come.
Whatever the reason for Obama’s move, there’s a bigger question that needs addressing. What does Obama do should Congress refuse to grant him the authorization he seeks?
CPAC 2013 got off to a roaring start with one of the conservative movement’s leading intellectuals, Louie Gohmert, opening act.
“Vietnam was winnable, but people in Washington decided we would not win it!”
A few more million gallons of Agent Orange (“400,000 [Vietnamese] were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use“) would have done the trick. The 20,000,000 gallons that Americans used from 1962 to 1971 to spray forests in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia was way short of what was really needed to have done the job properly. Right, Louie?
It’s hard enough to fathom how there could be that many people foolish enough to cast their vote for a total ignoramus like Gohmert. It’s even harder to understand why the Republican party would want to showcase this man’s ignorance.
The Iraq war was without a doubt Dick Cheney’s war. It was the war he wanted from the get-go and with the help of fellow neocons like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, it is the war he got by way of lies and deception. There were no WMDs and Cheney knew it from the beginning.
The Iraq war was responsible for the death of 4,486 U.S. soldiers and well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians…and it’s a war for which Dick Cheney has never apologized.
You might want to tune in to Rachel Maddow’s show tonight at 9 PM. She’s hosting a documentary special based on the 2007 book Hubris: Selling the Iraq War. The book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn is a great read and a revealing behind the scenes look at how a group of determined lying chickenhawk bastards conned a nation to go to war.
There are many opinions about war and remembering and how we acknowledge this today. My son was declared dead on Nov. 28, 2008 from TBI and then, suddenly and without explanation, he came back to life 5 minutes later. It is a miracle that I am deeply grateful for even though I cannot explain it. He served with the U.S. Marine Corp and gave distinguished service. He is now married, studying and working hard in his chosen career. I am so proud of him!
Also, my late husband served in the Navy for 20 years and finally died of a massive heart attack Aug. 19, 2004. I honor his service as well even though he died 9 years after retiring.
Memorial Day is a day of deep remembering for me. I do understand that many have turned this into a “start of summer” holiday. I hope that even those people will acknowledge that their ability to celebrate summer comes because of others who bled and died for them. We stand on the shoulders of others.
I have been studying U.S. history and especially the Civil War and I am awed and humbled by reading the personal journal accounts of those who were there and the perspectives of others who were affected by those days. JFK said that “we can’t know where we are going until we know where we have been”. I also remember that those who don’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it! I hope that everyone will take some time to learn “where we have been” so that they can see that the future will be more peaceful than our past.
To all, may Memorial Day be what you desire and need it to be for you and may it carry the remembrance of those who would wish your future to be the best because they gave “the last full measure of devotion” to see that you have your heart’s desire.