but it's not clear that there'll be the supply. Who could and would run a credible challenge? Howard Dean? He supports the war in Afghanistan. Feingold? Can't see it. And while I welcome a challenge from the left (on both economic and war-peace issues), I wouldn't welcome the racial division it would cause (assuming the challenger weren't black.)
At this point it seems that the only antiwar challenge may come from Lou Dobbs, who's called for the troops to come home from Afghanistan.
Because this unjust war is being waged by a Democrat.
And because the outrage six years ago wasn't antiwar outrage so much as anti-Iraq war outrage.
In any case, we're not getting out of Afghanistan or Iraq, ever.
"Counting the remaining bases in Iraq -- as many as 50 are slated to be operating after President Barack Obama’s August 31, 2010, deadline to remove all U.S. “combat troops” from the country -- and those in Afghanistan, as well as black sites like Al-Udeid, the total number of U.S. bases overseas now must significantly exceed 1,000. Just exactly how many U.S. military bases (and allied facilities used by U.S. forces) are scattered across the globe may never be publicly known. What we do know -- from the experience of bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea -- is that, once built, they have a tendency toward permanency that a cessation of hostilities, or even outright peace, has a way of not altering."
The deficit commission can't work; it'll be rejected by both liberals and conservatives in Congress. That's the best thing about it: it'll have no power, thankfully.
And of course the Obama administration isn't just focused on deficits in the long term but in the short term, and yeah, that runs counter to what should be the first priority, for reasons both substantive and political. Steve Kyle puts it well:
"What I find puzzling is that the Administration apparently seems to think that cutting spending is a bigger political winner than getting people jobs. No reading of the data I have ever seen would support that."
I wasn't being judgmental toward other progressives. I was being judgment toward Obama.
And while compromises need to be made, a bill shouldn't be so compromised it doesn't work well (fails to contain costs, for example.) This deal alone doesn't render reform a failure but it's part of the problem.
When there are no hard and fast rules, there are no hard and fast rules.
Perhaps it's not wise for the Obama DOJ to refuse to defend the law, maybe it would be breaking with precedent to do so, it would certainly be out of character, but let's dispense with the lie that he doesn't "have the right to." He does.