If you want to get an interesting perspective on Carter and the last 40 years of US history:
http://www
http://www
http://www
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
If you don't like PressTV, here's the same story in many different venues:
http://www
http://www
http://www
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No they cannot. The rules by which the Senate operates are adopted at the start of each new Congress. They are voted on first week. The rules cannot be changed mid session. According to the Senate's Official website:
SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES
==========
That's one way to change the rules, but not the only way:
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress
Page 6 - Changing Senate Rules: The “Constitutional” or “Nuclear” Option
Another set of options for altering the requirement for cloture would involve addressing the matter not on the opening day of a new Congress, but in the course of the session.
http://fpc
If you don't want to get rid of the filibuster, at least get on the bandwagon to get Harry Reid to force Republicans to actually filibuster instead of just threatening to.
The way you're holding on to this, one would think you work for the DLC/DNC.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I think some of the things passed by the Democratic congress truly move in the direction of reform, like consumer protection just recently. If the corporations are getting their way, why the howls from them on many pieces of legislation by Democrats.
==========
Like when they whined about ObamaCare until it passed, and then their stocks shot up?
If you think "some of the things passed by the Democratic congress truly move in the direction of reform, like consumer protection", you should watch this and remember that the Consumer Protection agency is going to be under the Federal Reserve:
http://www
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
'Hijacking Catastrophe' (a 2004 documentary):
"The war in Iraq was very very clearly about oil, as was the war in Afghanistan. The oil pipeline that was planned (in Afghanistan), the best security for that was an occupation
"If you map the proposed pipeline route across Afghanistan and you look at our bases? Matches perfectly. Our bases are there to solve a problem that the Taliban couldn't solve. Taliban couldn't provide security in that part of Afghanistan -- Well now that's where our bases are. So, does that have to do with Osama Bin Laden? It has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. It has everything to do with the longer plan, in this case a strategy which I wouldn't necessarily call neoconservative, however it fits perfectly in with the neoconservative ideology which says, 'If you have military force and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country's needs are paramount'. It's the whole idea of unilateralism, of using force to achieve your aims." -Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel whose assignments included a variety of roles for the National Security Agency and who spent her last 4 1/2 years working at the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld
http://www
http://www
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Yesterday (9/14/09), the Obama DOJ -- as expected -- filed a legal brief (.pdf) which adopted the arguments originally made by the Bush DOJ to insist that detainees whom they abduct from around the world and then ship to Bagram (rather than Guantanamo) lack any constitutional rights whatsoever, including habeas review. The ObamaAdministration is appealing from a decision by Bush-43-appointed DistrictCo
Read more @ http://www
About Guantánamo Bay
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The sham of closing Guantanamo:
==It's now apparent that the biggest sham in American politics is BarackObama's pledge to close Guantanamo and, more generally, to dismantle the Bush/Cheney approach to detaining accused Terrorists. In August, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees -- people abducted from around the world & shipped to our prison in Cuba -- have the constitutional right to habeas corpus (a court review of their imprisonment). Then-candidate Obama issued a statement lavishly praising that ruling:
"Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach."
That was so moving
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
