Obama the neo-con

Obama uses “state secrets” as a rationale to use assassinate an American with no review. What a precedent.
There is no state secret worth keeping, if this is the price we pay for it. What would happen if these secrets were disclosed? Seriously, what’s the worst-case scenario? Would we end up… living in a tyranny?

Glenn mentions that there are Obama supporters of his abuse of executive power, but who are these flaks?

Obama supporters who are dutifully insisting that the President not only has the right to order American citizens killed without due process, but to do so in total secrecy, on the ground that Awlaki is a Terrorist and Traitor, are embracing those accusations without having the slightest idea whether they're actually true.  All they know is that Obama has issued these accusations, which is good enough for them.  That's the authoritarian mind, by definition:  if the Leader accuses a fellow citizen of something, then it's true -- no trial or any due process at all is needed and there is no need even for judicial review before the decreed sentence is meted out, even when the sentence is death.  For those reciting the "Awlaki-is-a-traitor" mantra, there's also the apparently irrelevant matter that Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution...

I'm sure that there are anonymous commenters posing as neocons, but are there any Obama loyalist bloggers stepping up to back this odious position of Obama that actually makes Bush's abuse even worse?

With this, "Obama uses this secrecy and immunity weapon not to shield Bush lawlessness from judicial review, but his own." Its neo-con unadulterated.

And yet, they continue to be marveled in the WH flak shop why self-respecting progressives have thrown them to the dogs.

At this point in time I've concluded that in 2004, when Kerry lost to Bush in 2004, it was all over but for the shouting. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush is going to go down in history as having set the military agenda abroad and within for a generation.

Obama is like a middle-late inning relief-specialist pitcher. He's brought out to gun down the lefty, then sent back to the pen.

Tags: (all tags)



Just wondering aloud

What, in regards to the military issues (executive abuse of power, wars abroad, drones, funding... etc), has Obama differed from Bush?  There's gotta be something, right? Anything?

Iraq, he's not done anything that Bush didn't already set into motion (Obama the great follow-througher), he's escalated drone use, he escalated Afghanistan. The above.



by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-26 09:52AM | 0 recs
RE: Just wondering aloud

well, he said that they are not torturing anymore.

I realize that that's not a whole lot, but it is SOMETHING, since the previous administration actually seemed to embrace torture, while Obama either ended it (at best) or has just publically denounced it (at worst).

Either way, that's something that is better than the previous admin.


by jeopardy 2010-09-26 09:58AM | 0 recs
but yeah

stuff like this is why the head of the ACLU said he's been "disgusted" by the Admin's actions re: civil rights

One of the biggest dissapointments of Obama's time in office, for sure.

by jeopardy 2010-09-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
RE: but yeah

Its very surprising, given that Obama is a constitutional expert. There's nothing to indicate in his campaign that he would carry on this way; in fact, just the opposite.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-26 01:21PM | 0 recs
Why don't all terrorists deserve a trial?

Due process rights only extend to U.S. citizens because of the scope of the constitution. Logically speaking, that makes sense. But morally? It does not. No human life should be valued higher than another.

So, by extension, isn't it wrong to kill any terrorist leader, without giving him a trial? 

But when one of those terrorist leaders came from America, its not only wrong, but represents a tyrannical action by our government?

In practice, the government cannot always afford someone the full protection of due process rights. When police officers get in a shootout with a suspect, oftentimes that suspect winds up dead without ever having been tried in court. And, but for a question of facts, no one every cries foul. 

That's because our rights as Americans often conflicts with the rights of other Americans. Here, this terror suspect may not have been in the process of shooting at us. But perhaps he was causing the death of Americans, and capturing him would cause even more lives lost. 

I don't mean to excuse these actions completely. I do not know all the facts surrounding this case and I do not submit that this action was justified under the circumstances. But I certainly do not believe that this is a prima facie case of a tyrannical government ignoring our constitution.

Look back on the precedent set by our judicial branch over the years- due process rights, like first amendment rights, second amendment rights, etc., have been subject to limitations without sacrificing American principles of justice.

by BlueGAinDC 2010-09-26 12:05PM | 0 recs
RE: Why don't all terrorists deserve a trial?

Laws of War. The US is in a state of war with AQ and allies (declared shortly after 9/11). That gives the legal authoritah for military action, regardless of their citizenship (see american citizens fighting for Germany during ww2).

Ofcourse who is a member of AQ or allied group is sort of open to interpretation.

by vecky 2010-09-26 12:54PM | 1 recs
RE: Why don't all terrorists deserve a trial?

Ok, what point are you making? That Obama has the authority to do this under the laws of way?

My point was that this really comes down to a question of morals, as the law itself it nothing without its underlying purpose.

And if Obama is a tyrant for ordering the assassination of an American citizen fighting for the opposing side, merely because of the fact that he is an american citizen, the question is why? 

Is there such a distinction between an American life and a foreign life that we are to presume one, even with significant evidence he is fighting the US as a terrorist, is innocent until tried by a court while the other is presumed guilty?

by BlueGAinDC 2010-09-26 03:48PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

I've read post after post on this site, specifically from you, that seems to be nothing more than bitter Obama-hatred.  

Obama is no liberal.  Okay, I get that.  I'm disappointed.  Fine.  But you know what? I am a liberal so I can be disappointed.  If I recall correctly it was you who supported Mark Warner's brief flirtation with a presidential run when he hosted that lavish party during the then-named Yearly Kos convention in Vegas.  Mark Warner is arguably more corporatist and to the right of Obama.  And weren't you a die hard Hillary supporter?  Hillary Clinton who unapologetically supported the Iraq war?  Hillary and Gates also supported more of an escalation in Afghanistan.  You think she would be any different?  Yet, there's this strange "I told you so" quality to your posts when you discuss Obama and Hillary.

I've gone from being a fan of this site to now rolling my eyes when I read obvious hyperbolic bullshit like Obama's "brought out to gun down the left".    I mean, really?  "Gun down the left".  As if your #1 candidate hadn't shown just as much derision to the Progressive base.   Hell, the entire Democratic political establishment, of which Obama and your chosen candidates are a part of, looks at their base as a burden.  

It is your disingenuousness that makes me question your motives. You are no Jane Hamsher and Cenk Uygur.  At least they have consistently maintained the same positions.   While I disagree with Hamsher, at least she has been consistent.  (I like Cenk).  If Hillary won, would you be tearing her down at every opportunity the way you do Obama?  

You want to argue style and politics, go ahead.  That, I think, is the biggest difference between Obama and Hillary.  But don't you dare castigate Obama for being weakly to the left of Hillary on foreign/national security policy.  It discredits you and makes you appear to be nothing more than a hack.  


by dayspring 2010-09-26 12:08PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

You obviously don't read the site, but just pretend too. I stated all the time that Obama was no different than Clinton, except that the latter was partisan. I backed neither of them, abhored them both over their votes to support the war.

Until I had to choose. And then on whom I thought would be best to:

1) Be partisan

2) respond to pressure in the progressive base

Style?  OK, we agree. When I realized the Dems would win big in '06 and '08, I wanted a partisan progressive, and backed Edwards fwiw. Obama I knew as faking it based on their very good polling (obvious to a hack like myself).

Hell, the entire Democratic political establishment, of which Obama and your chosen candidates are a part of, looks at their base as a burden.

I agree, which is why I have come to abhor the Democratic Political Establishment, of which I am sure you are a part. I'm ready for a revolution in this country that throws out the establishment of both parties.

What's disingenuous is the likening whomever I happened to work for as a political client to what my views are. So, since I worked for about 40 of them, I share all their views?  Of course, that is nonsense.

If I was bitter over anything, it would be that the guys that led Obama's campaign, and on whom Markos and every other hopemonger jumped aboard, Gibbs, Axelrod, Plouffe, were exactly the guys who were trashing what we were building with Dean in 2003. Gibbs, then with Kerry, was certainly the worst. Plouffe was so lost with Gephardt in Iowa but then instituted the murder-suicide. Or Axelrod, whom I got a major laugh out of seeing him morph Edwards into the Change for America candidate in Iowa.

Now, see those are some smart hacks. They learned how they were getting their ass kicked, so when they latched onto Obama, they knew what to engineer. But whats to be bitter about; its nothing but an interesting history.

Obama is a terrible President. Way worse than I ever imagined. He's a disaster for the Democratic Party.

I'm disappointed.

That's a step, iirc the 2nd or soemthing?

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-26 01:29PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

Obama is a terrible President. Way worse than I ever imagined. He's a disaster for the Democratic Party.

This sums up everything I feel about the last two years. 

by Kent 2010-09-26 09:02PM | 0 recs
People like you

Will hand the Hill to the Repubs in Nov, then maybe even the White House in '12, and cry, whine, and pout, that the Democrats -  who you seem to hate -  are not doing enough to thwart the Republicans on this and that.

We've seen this movie before.   It was the first decade of this century.

You want a progressive in office?  The get one nominated and get one elected.   YOU CAN'T. 

So you can either work with the center, and left center, while working overtime to bring the party AND MORE IMPORTANTLY the country over to your set of views, or you can run along, vote for Nader and take what you get.   

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-27 01:39PM | 1 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

I used to read this site a lot more, but the past few months it's just been a lot of Obama sucks.  I mean, EVERYTHING he does sucks.  You start with that as the conclusion and then analyze backwards to get the conclusion you want. 

I don't think Obama is a terrible President.  We've had terrible presidents - Bush was a terrible president.   Obama is a pretty good president... for a moderate Republican from the 90s.

Obama is a wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road, meek, and timid guy who only "fights" when he knows he can win.  He doesn't appear to want to upset the established power structure and he, along with all other Dems take people like me for granted.  (Oh, and I'm not part of any Democratic establishment. I dont know why you'd assume that.)

But back to the point, it just seems that you've hated on Obama from the start and that no matter what, even the little bits of good things that he's done, is just more reason to crap on him, which would be fine if you didnt support candidates that were far more corporatist and right-of-center.  That's my issue.  

And yeah, call me a naive idealist, but I do expect you to share the views of the candidates you worked for.  How can you have supported Mark Warner (who voted to hold a Repub filibuster on a bill that would discourage outsourcing) if you didn't believe in what he stood for?  

So we have a Democratic party that shits on its base and sells out to corporations.  (see Henry Waxman and net neutrality roll-over-and-die bill).  What do we do about that?  Or Mark Warner voting to hold a Republican filibuster?  How do we get Dems to appeal to their base instead of treating us like peons?  

by dayspring 2010-09-28 04:12PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

I've always argued that there was very little room between Obama and Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, in fact that was the argument of most Clinton supporters (their differences on economic policy were larger). Does the phrase the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen ring any bells? As I recall Bill Clinton's statement had to be turned into a huge controversy to avoid Obama supporters noticing that what he said was true.

The difference was Hillary Clinton was clear about what her foreign policy would be, neither you nor I could have any illusions about it. Obama promoted illusions. So the choice was between the candidate who had enough respect for her base to speak directly to them when she disagreed, and the candidate who chose to obscure his policy with rhetoric. It was not between two fundamentally different approaches to foreign policy.


by tib 2010-09-26 01:35PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

Hillary's "explanation" to her base on her Iraq war vote was confusing enough, so i'm not sure what clarity you got out of it. Maybe you could explain it?

by vecky 2010-09-27 03:06AM | 0 recs
Good point

Now, perhaps you can explain Obama's explanation to his base.

Something about how he had superior judgement, as evidenced by his opposition to the Iraq war vote; and based on that superior judgement, he knew in advance that the Iraq-surge was going to fail; and that he was going to use that superior judgment to defeat Al Quaeda...all within 18 months or so.

Look, it is easy to point fingers.  Reality is that noone has a clue...and this includes the people who are in charge, the people who were in charge, and all the people who wanted to be in charge.

by Ravi Verma 2010-09-27 04:41AM | 0 recs
RE: Good point

I think the difference is not so much "superior judgement" as temperament. Obama is (and was) expected to be far more cautious than Clinton, and both would have been more cautious than Bush. When it comes to foreign affairs and invading/bombing other countries that's about as much as we can hope for. That the C-in-C proceeds as cautiously and carefully as can be hoped for.

I believe Obama has so far kept that promise. 

by vecky 2010-09-27 02:33PM | 0 recs
RE: Good point

I think the difference is not so much "superior judgement" as temperament.

This is a silly attempt at rewriting history.  A simple google check reveals what was being touted.  While I dont doubt that you may have been personally impressed by his "temperament", and that it may even have been touted by someone (without any basis, I might add), the historical record reveals that he was clearly touting his judgement, and not his temperament.  He was clearly not setting himself up as a peacenik (something that Jerome always seems to miss) The very "fairy tale" comment you were disputing, for instance, was about his superior judgement

“Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, ‘Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you’re now running on off your website in 2004 and there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since?’ Give me a break.

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” …

Obama is (and was) expected to be more cautiious than Bush in initiating wars ?

This must be strange, given his own words

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Hillary voted for that dumb war and McCain wants to continue that dumb war indefinitely.

Given that he does not do a very good job of spelling out the differences between "all" and "dumb" wars prior to an eventual outcome (his words imply that "successful" wars are not "dumb", but how do you know if a war is going to be successful when you initiate one), and given that his historical track record of differentiating at this is somewhat dismal (he was in favor of the Afghan war, and not in favor of Iraq; from the POV of successful outcome, this seems to imply 0/2 so far), it is impossible to conclude that he is expected to be more cautious than Bush.  Further, given that he has expanded the war's scope in A'stan, while simultaneously reducing the scope in Iraq would suggest that he has not been more cautious than Bush.

I agree that he has kept most of his promises.  It is just that his promises were very different from what you listed; and the ones that he will not keep (pullout following victory within 18 months in Afghanistan, for instance) are ones that were silly to begin with.


Finally, you seem to be making a big deal out of "caution"; and Bush's implied lack of caution in initiating wars. My guess is that you are talking about Iraq, and not Afghanistan ~ you dont fault Bush for being insufficiently cautious in Afghanistan, do you?  You forget that Bush was fairly cautious wrt to the Iraq war as well.  The planning for the Iraq war started the day he took office.  I can fault Bush for many things, but lack of cautioun is not one of them.

by Ravi Verma 2010-09-27 04:57PM | 0 recs
RE: Good point

I only said the temperament angle was my own view, I am well aware of what was said during the campaign. For what it's worth I don't think Hillary is any stupider than Obama. But she is certainly more Hawkish than he is. That's temperament, not smarts.

As for the caution angle - Bush was definitely gung-ho about war - whether in A'stan or Iraq. Long term planning or exit strategies were not actively considered - things were simply expected to fall into place. Everything seemed to happen on a "seat of the pants" basis and numerous accounts have told of the utter confusion and chaos within the admin that followed the invasion of Iraq, something they had supposedly "planned" for. 

We have not seen that kind of activity with Obama. By all accounts this administration takes time reviewing options and formulating decisions, even if those are decisions we may not agree with.

by vecky 2010-09-28 03:48AM | 0 recs
RE: Good point

We have not seen that kind of activity with Obama. By all accounts this administration takes time reviewing options and formulating decisions, even if those are decisions we may not agree with.


You must not have paid attention. Here are some helpful quotes about the process within the WH (all from various reviews of Bob Woodward's latest book)

Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the president’s Afghanistan adviser, is described as believing that the president’s review did not “add up” to the decision he made.


Richard C. Holbrooke, the president’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, is quoted saying of the strategy that “it can’t work.”


Even at the end of the process, the president's team wrestled with the most basic questions about the war, then entering its ninth year: What is the mission? What are we trying to do? What will work?


"Can you support this?" Obama asked Gates. "Because if the answer is no, I understand it and I'll be happy to just authorize another 10,000 troops, and we can continue to go as we are and train the Afghan national force and just hope for the best."

"Hope for the best." The condescending words hung in the air.

The process looks just as broken now, as it did under Bush.

by Ravi Verma 2010-09-28 12:25PM | 0 recs
RE: Good point

Your missing the forest for the trees. The manner is which decisions are taken are deliberate and deliberative with all sides (and everyone has differing opinions) well aware of the gravity of the decisions being made. 

That's quite the contrast from before and is what I meant by saying "cautious". Caution is ofcourse not a pseudonym for timidity or inactions.

by vecky 2010-09-28 01:23PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

Sure, Hillary Clinton said her 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution was a vote to put inspectors back in so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She wanted to give the president the tools to deal with Saddam Hussein.

I believe, and I argued at the time, that she and the Senate made the wrong choice. She was clearly mistaken in believing that President Bush was operating in good faith. She defends her vote, but not the war.

I don't expect any candidate to agree with me on most issues, I'm on the Liberal side of the Democratic party on most issues. So I look for the candidate who I believe will move the country in the direction I prefer. I find candidates who honestly disagree with me on particulars, and who are honest about the limitations of the office they seek, more appealing than those who tell me what I want to hear.


by tib 2010-09-27 10:37AM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

She defends her vote, but not the war.


See, that's the confusing bit, that's not clear at all. Essentially your point is she voted to give Bush authority to invade Iraq, but was not actually being in favour of invasion - just for more inspections. I mean that's an argument I would buy if I considered Hillary to be a) really that stupid, b) had heard her teeth-gashing when Bush decided to invade while the inspectors were still doing their thing. 

Unfortunately neither a) nor b) are true.

by vecky 2010-09-27 02:27PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

I didn't say she opposed invasion, she supported an invasion if Hussein were developing weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was developing nuclear weapons during the Clinton administration, hence Clinton's 1998 attack on Iraq. Those programs were confirmed by weapons inspections and by documentation uncovered after our invasion.

Hillary Clinton did not believe George Bush would invade Iraq without solid evidence of those programs. But he did, and he mislead the American people and Congress to do it. You can call her stupid if you like, but she was giving an American president what she felt was the support he said he needed.


by tib 2010-09-27 03:09PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

What "support" did Bush in 2002 need that Clinton did not have in 1998? Hillary knew her vote in '02 was a vote for war, she said it herself at the time, during her speech in favor of it.

To pretend that she was merely misled by Bush and din't believe he would actually invade without "firm proof", is attempting to pull wool over our eyes. IIRC there was an amendment brought up during the vote that would have made the invasion dependent on another vote from congress following the inspectors report. Clinton voted against that one..

by vecky 2010-09-27 03:43PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

Bill Clinton engaged in a series of air-strikes, not an invasion. Bush intended to invade Iraq with the declared purpose of removing Iraq's WMD capability, for that he needed Congressional support.

Hillary Clinton supported an invasion, i.e. war, to remove the threat of Hussein's WMDs.

What wool are you talking about? Are you trying to claim that Hillary Clinton secretly knew that Bush was misleading the country?

But we are far from your original question, the clarity of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. She was clear that she would have invaded Iraq had she been convinced that it had secretly developed nuclear weapons in violation of U.N. agreements, in other words she stood by her vote. Obama's position was the same, but he attacked her for sharing his view.


by tib 2010-09-27 04:28PM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

What's the difference? Congressional support is needed for military action - it's in the constitution. Regime change in Iraq was the stated US policy since the 90's.

Hillary ofcourse would later label her vote a mistake, after first insisting it wasn't. Bit hard to stand by something and call it a mistake and she wouldn't have done it again at the same time.


by vecky 2010-09-28 03:56AM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

btw, Hussein was not developing nukes during the Clinton admin either. That claim, like many others, turned out to be false.

by vecky 2010-09-28 03:51AM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

IAEA says it was true, they described the central question in 2003 as:

whether Iraq has revived or attempted to revive its defunct nuclear weapons programme over the last four years.

Hard to revive something that never existed.

Do you have any evidence showing otherwise?

by tib 2010-09-28 08:55AM | 0 recs
RE: I'm sorry Jerome, but I can no longer stay silent

It existed, but was shut down in the early 90's, and verified as such by inspectors at the time (uptil '98). And was further documented by the Iraq Survey Group. If your saying Iraq still had a clandestine nuclear weapons program during the 90's - that's a lie, like many others.

That's why the IAEA labelled it as a "question". Not fact. Bit silly to authorize a war over a question. Not to even mention the "clear and immediate danger" criteria that is supposed to be used.

by vecky 2010-09-28 01:31PM | 0 recs

I'm gonna follow up on this, because it really pissed me off as I reflected on the time. You have no idea how much I was pushing Warner from the progressive side from inside his PAC-future campaign. One of the main reasons I went to work for him was because he didn't carry the baggage of voting for Iraq, and when I'd asked him about it at the get-go, he replied, 'what a big f'ing mistake'. In fact, I'd garner my framing of where he needed to go to win the nomination (anti-war, tar'n Clinton) probably ultimately contributed to his rationale for staying out of the race. And that was fine by me, its not like, with two young kids, I was itching to lose a couple of years of my life inside a 24/7 campaign. Which is exactly why, instead of going to work for Clinton or Obama or any of the others in 2006, after Warner dropped out, I choose to go work for Kerry, and help him with the anti-war effort in the Senate.

Kerry, you'll recall, had an up-down vote on setting a deadline for getting troops out of Iraq that failed in early 2006. It got 11 votes. I set out with his small team to change that equation with setadeadline.com and his large army of a list and his Senate staff. That's what I spent 2007 doing, and pushing for it to become the stance of the Democratic party, and it happend. Then in 2008, worked as a part of 11 Senate winning Senate campaigns, and helping Polis win the open CO House seat. That's what I remember working on in 2008.

But for anon asshats like you, it's all about Clinton vs Obama still.

One regret I certainly have is engaging the assholes here like you throughout 2008 and onward. You can have your fucking shiny Obama object for all I care.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-09-26 10:02PM | 2 recs
RE: gtfooh

I dont doubt your intentions here.  And certainly, I remember reading this blog and remember your incessant posts about how Obama and Clinton were no different on any substantive policy position.

That said, I am wondering a few things.

(a) If I understand you correctly, your position is that the current system of government is inherently corrupt; regardless of which set of players is elected to power.  I dont disagree, but I would like to point out that this leaves you in a tiny minority.  Most people believe that the current system of government is just fine, just so long as the right set of guys are in charge.  We disagree on which set that should be, but you get the drift.

(b) If indeed you are about changing the system via a revolution, then what is your plan for that.  The only revolution that is currently fomenting are by those that drink tea.  A coffee revolution, perhaps ?  Seriously, however, what are the options ?

(c) With respect to a revolution, most revolutions are dogged by a failure to correctly diagnose the problems with the system being replaced.  Everyone may know that a particular system is failing, but the proper fix can only be developed if the underlying cause of the failure has been correctly diagnosed.  What is your diagnosis.  How long have you thought about this diagnosis ?


Too many questions for a comment, perhaps.  Feel free to express yourself in any which way...I read regularly (even if I dont comment)



by Ravi Verma 2010-09-27 12:54AM | 0 recs
WH motto?

Given Jerome's comment, "Bush is gong to go down in history as having set the military agenda abroad and within for a generation" it seems that the motto of this administration and the curse upon the American people has become "I'm with stupid."


by David Kowalski 2010-09-26 01:24PM | 1 recs
I can support it

IF 1) it helps stop real live terrorists and not imagined code orange threats, and 2) IF there are safeguards in place and procedures to make sure it is not abused.

by RichardFlatts 2010-09-27 01:36PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads