Comments on: Your Government in Action http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/ Firedoglake weblog Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:46:30 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: PFT http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-998514 PFT Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:31:55 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-998514 <p>Congress specifically recognized this authority in 2001 following the 9-11 attacks when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The resolution provides as a matter of fact that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” </p> <p>Iran now harbours a terrorist group, so says the Congress, and if the President determines they have been or may attack Americans in the future in Iraq. Bombs away.</p> Congress specifically recognized this authority in 2001 following the 9-11 attacks when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The resolution provides as a matter of fact that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

Iran now harbours a terrorist group, so says the Congress, and if the President determines they have been or may attack Americans in the future in Iraq. Bombs away.

]]> By: inmymind’seye http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-997455 inmymind’seye Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:10:17 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-997455 <p>I am so sickened by this vote. I hope everyone emails and phones Reid’s office. This is unacceptable. Why are the Republicans stillmoving the agenda in Congress? And why is the Democratically controlled Congress still voting lockstep with these ghouls?<br /> Reid needs to hear from all of us that this is outrageous. This lays the foundation for war with Iran.<br /> And where was Obama? Conveniently absent.<br /> I got a call from his campaign this afternoon and let them know that an absence on a vote of this importance is simply unacceptable.<br /> They all suck.</p> I am so sickened by this vote. I hope everyone emails and phones Reid’s office. This is unacceptable. Why are the Republicans stillmoving the agenda in Congress? And why is the Democratically controlled Congress still voting lockstep with these ghouls?
Reid needs to hear from all of us that this is outrageous. This lays the foundation for war with Iran.
And where was Obama? Conveniently absent.
I got a call from his campaign this afternoon and let them know that an absence on a vote of this importance is simply unacceptable.
They all suck.

]]> By: CheckingIn http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996612 CheckingIn Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:05:43 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996612 <p>After all this is not *old* news:</p> <p>Et tu, Unnamed Democrat?<br /> by wildekid<br /> Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:07:19 PM PDT</p> <p>Further into the Hersh piece (well, a hot one paragraph later), he says:</p> <p>The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.”</p> <p><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/18719/83003">http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....8719/83003</a></p> After all this is not *old* news:

Et tu, Unnamed Democrat?
by wildekid
Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:07:19 PM PDT

Further into the Hersh piece (well, a hot one paragraph later), he says:

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.”

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..8719/83003

]]> By: CheckingIn http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996609 CheckingIn Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:02:43 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996609 <p><a href="#comment-996200"><em>LS @ 18</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>The language in the Amendment was changed. The bill linked to in the post, is not the one that was passed. Please read it as amended.:</p> <p><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/kyl-lieberman-amendment/?resultpage=8&">http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c.....age=8&</a></p></blockquote> <p>Most of us here are not NAIVE…</p> <p>We and definitely the neocons and neolibs who voted for this amendment know that Condi and Bush already see themselves as having expansive war powers — and this resolution is an basically acknowledging and giving the ok *again* for the President go ahead without Congressional authority to EXPAND THE BOGUS *WAR ON TERROR* remembering that:</p> <blockquote><p>“…Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the president has the right to attack Syria, without congressional approval, if he deems that a necessary move in the war on terror…”<br /> <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/23/war_counsel/">http://www.boston.com/news/glo.....r_counsel/</a></p></blockquote> <p>I can’t find my notes… but all this comes back to the 2002 AUFM and how much power it gives Bush (or how much power Bush thinks he has) under the War Powers Act. How he can expand the *War On Terror* into other soveriegn states. How he will respond with Nukes. What would be defined as a pre-emptive strike vs. an act of defense.</p> <p>etc. etc… This vote was significant.</p> LS @ 18

The language in the Amendment was changed. The bill linked to in the post, is not the one that was passed. Please read it as amended.:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..age=8&

Most of us here are not NAIVE…

We and definitely the neocons and neolibs who voted for this amendment know that Condi and Bush already see themselves as having expansive war powers — and this resolution is an basically acknowledging and giving the ok *again* for the President go ahead without Congressional authority to EXPAND THE BOGUS *WAR ON TERROR* remembering that:

“…Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the president has the right to attack Syria, without congressional approval, if he deems that a necessary move in the war on terror…”
http://www.boston.com/news/glo…..r_counsel/

I can’t find my notes… but all this comes back to the 2002 AUFM and how much power it gives Bush (or how much power Bush thinks he has) under the War Powers Act. How he can expand the *War On Terror* into other soveriegn states. How he will respond with Nukes. What would be defined as a pre-emptive strike vs. an act of defense.

etc. etc… This vote was significant.

]]> By: j.cro http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996583 j.cro Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:45:54 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996583 <p>Ugh, both my Senators voted for this!! It’s a sad day for the people of NJ and the country as a whole.</p> <p>What happened to the Dems fighting for us? I feel abandoned.</p> Ugh, both my Senators voted for this!! It’s a sad day for the people of NJ and the country as a whole.

What happened to the Dems fighting for us? I feel abandoned.

]]> By: MarkH http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996576 MarkH Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:39:11 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996576 <p><a href="#comment-996192"><em>albert fall @ 13</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>No way in hell will Hillary get my primary vote.</p> <p>The general election, we’re stuck, but she is not my nominee.</p></blockquote> <p>The big problem we face in the primary is that the more conservative Dems have 2, maybe 3, candidates, but the more Progressive-Liberal voters have 5 or 6 candidates splitting the vote.</p> <p>How can a Progressive or Liberal ever win if the vote is split this way and there’s no run-off?</p> <p>Either you have to bring down the Conservative candidates or you have to join together behind one candidate.</p> <p>I’m not asking anyone to forego supporting the candidate they like. But, it should be obvious we are climbing a steep hill, trying to defeat Clinton.</p> <p>Even if Obama were to leave the race it’s not clear where his supporters would go.</p> <p>If Hillary has 40% of the Dem voters (nationally), then there’s 60% that can beat her if we can get them together.</p> <p>I suppose we have to hope Obama stays in the race to keep the conservative vote split and somehow join together to defeat Clinton (the more dangerous of those two).</p> <p>Can you peel off some of Clinton’s supporters? It depends upon what drives them. If they’re in it for the celebrity factor, then it is hopeless. If they really see her as the “next in line”, then maybe they can be awakened to their choices.</p> <p>A lot is riding on this. We have to get it right.</p> albert fall @ 13

No way in hell will Hillary get my primary vote.

The general election, we’re stuck, but she is not my nominee.

The big problem we face in the primary is that the more conservative Dems have 2, maybe 3, candidates, but the more Progressive-Liberal voters have 5 or 6 candidates splitting the vote.

How can a Progressive or Liberal ever win if the vote is split this way and there’s no run-off?

Either you have to bring down the Conservative candidates or you have to join together behind one candidate.

I’m not asking anyone to forego supporting the candidate they like. But, it should be obvious we are climbing a steep hill, trying to defeat Clinton.

Even if Obama were to leave the race it’s not clear where his supporters would go.

If Hillary has 40% of the Dem voters (nationally), then there’s 60% that can beat her if we can get them together.

I suppose we have to hope Obama stays in the race to keep the conservative vote split and somehow join together to defeat Clinton (the more dangerous of those two).

Can you peel off some of Clinton’s supporters? It depends upon what drives them. If they’re in it for the celebrity factor, then it is hopeless. If they really see her as the “next in line”, then maybe they can be awakened to their choices.

A lot is riding on this. We have to get it right.

]]> By: Ed Kunin http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996563 Ed Kunin Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:28:32 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996563 <p><a href="#comment-996537"><em>SeamusD @ 177</em></a></p> <blockquote> <p>I’m not convinced that the generals, et al, are all that willing to jump off of the Iran cliff..</p></blockquote> <p>I hope you are right but I fear you are wrong. Logic and common sense has nothing to do with it. Perhaps if the UN were to pass a resolution “ordering” the US not to bomb Iran, it might help, but I doubt it. As for the generals, are they the same guys who picked out 1400 or so sites in Iran to bomb?</p> SeamusD @ 177

I’m not convinced that the generals, et al, are all that willing to jump off of the Iran cliff..

I hope you are right but I fear you are wrong. Logic and common sense has nothing to do with it. Perhaps if the UN were to pass a resolution “ordering” the US not to bomb Iran, it might help, but I doubt it. As for the generals, are they the same guys who picked out 1400 or so sites in Iran to bomb?

]]> By: Veritas78 http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996555 Veritas78 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:23:23 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996555 <p>Both my senators voted against the Lieberputz-Kyl amendment, and Ed Markey, my representative, voted against the House Move-On resolution. I called all three to thank them.</p> <p>Booyah and woohoo! Move to Boston, y’all!</p> Both my senators voted against the Lieberputz-Kyl amendment, and Ed Markey, my representative, voted against the House Move-On resolution. I called all three to thank them.

Booyah and woohoo! Move to Boston, y’all!

]]> By: SeamusD http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996537 SeamusD Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:10:06 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996537 <p><a href="#comment-996508"><em>LS @ 174</em></a></p> <blockquote><p><a href="#comment-996473"><em>Ed Kunin @ 169</em></a></p> <blockquote><p>Nothing personal, but you people don’t get it. If the sense of the senate was the opposite and instructed Bush not to bomb Iran, he would try to bomb it anyhow. That the generals, pilots, grunts eagerly follow him off the cliff-actually they jump off and he stays behind, boggles the mind. If the senate had gone the other way, underlings might have been encouraged to disobey the attack order. As it is, no way.</p> <p>No one knows where those errant nuclear cruise missles are. We know they went south by mistake, but we don’t know if the mistake was corrected and they were returned home. There’s lots on the web to indicate it could not possibly have been a mistake. Whoever leaked it to the press must be sweating. It’s hard to be the sane one in the asylum. As for Gore or anyone in 2008, let’s hope so.</p></blockquote> <p>I think you are correct.</p></blockquote> <p>I’m not convinced that the generals, et al, are all that willing to jump off of the Iran cliff. There are a lot of realists in the military who realize that attacking Iran is not the smartest move that the US could make. There are real consequences that could cost them dearly. Iran could easily close the Strait of Hormuz by sinking a few tankers in the shipping channel, and that would just be the easiest retaliation. They have the potential to sink any aircraft carrier that gets too close, and their Shiite allies in Iraq could really wreak havoc. And that’s without reckoning on Russia, China, and the rest of the world who would dearly love to take America down a few pegs.</p> LS @ 174

Ed Kunin @ 169

Nothing personal, but you people don’t get it. If the sense of the senate was the opposite and instructed Bush not to bomb Iran, he would try to bomb it anyhow. That the generals, pilots, grunts eagerly follow him off the cliff-actually they jump off and he stays behind, boggles the mind. If the senate had gone the other way, underlings might have been encouraged to disobey the attack order. As it is, no way.

No one knows where those errant nuclear cruise missles are. We know they went south by mistake, but we don’t know if the mistake was corrected and they were returned home. There’s lots on the web to indicate it could not possibly have been a mistake. Whoever leaked it to the press must be sweating. It’s hard to be the sane one in the asylum. As for Gore or anyone in 2008, let’s hope so.

I think you are correct.

I’m not convinced that the generals, et al, are all that willing to jump off of the Iran cliff. There are a lot of realists in the military who realize that attacking Iran is not the smartest move that the US could make. There are real consequences that could cost them dearly. Iran could easily close the Strait of Hormuz by sinking a few tankers in the shipping channel, and that would just be the easiest retaliation. They have the potential to sink any aircraft carrier that gets too close, and their Shiite allies in Iraq could really wreak havoc. And that’s without reckoning on Russia, China, and the rest of the world who would dearly love to take America down a few pegs.

]]> By: shootthatarrow>>> http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996534 shootthatarrow>>> Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:09:02 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/26/your-government-in-action/#comment-996534 <p>So lets see now…</p> <p>1…Which nation since 1945 has done lots of regime change,front and back door entry or simple break and entry warmaking,sends official government agents into the world to muck up things for other nations and since the turn of the century(2000)decided to invade and occupy(we cant leave now–must stay–who will OverWatch if we leave?) Iraq?</p> <p>A)China</p> <p>b)Brazil</p> <p>c)India</p> <p>d)Iran</p> <p>e)USA</p> <p>2…Which current Democratic Party Primary Candidate for President of United States voted to invade Iraq and evidently may well desire to have lots of Americans stay on in Iraq for OverWatch(also known as colonialism) if elected President of USA?</p> <p>a) Gravel</p> <p>b) Obama</p> <p>c) Richardson</p> <p>d) Clinton</p> <p>3…Which current U.S.Senator has stated that many of these Sense of the Senate votes are pandering/grandstanding in nature and so does not view them as up/down critical votes in/of substance? You may agree or disagree.</p> <p>a) Dodd</p> <p>b) Obama</p> <p>c) Biden</p> <p>d) Clinton</p> <p>4…Which current Democratic Party Candidate for President of United States seems ever so inclined to keep Americans in Iraq for OverWatch and also just voted to further set up Iran and provide political cover for a Bush/Cheney regime whack job?</p> <p>a) Obama</p> <p>b) Dodd</p> <p>c) Clinton</p> <p>b) Biden</p> <p>Correct Answers </p> <p>1….e</p> <p>2….d</p> <p>3….b</p> <p>4….c</p> So lets see now…

1…Which nation since 1945 has done lots of regime change,front and back door entry or simple break and entry warmaking,sends official government agents into the world to muck up things for other nations and since the turn of the century(2000)decided to invade and occupy(we cant leave now–must stay–who will OverWatch if we leave?) Iraq?

A)China

b)Brazil

c)India

d)Iran

e)USA

2…Which current Democratic Party Primary Candidate for President of United States voted to invade Iraq and evidently may well desire to have lots of Americans stay on in Iraq for OverWatch(also known as colonialism) if elected President of USA?

a) Gravel

b) Obama

c) Richardson

d) Clinton

3…Which current U.S.Senator has stated that many of these Sense of the Senate votes are pandering/grandstanding in nature and so does not view them as up/down critical votes in/of substance? You may agree or disagree.

a) Dodd

b) Obama

c) Biden

d) Clinton

4…Which current Democratic Party Candidate for President of United States seems ever so inclined to keep Americans in Iraq for OverWatch and also just voted to further set up Iran and provide political cover for a Bush/Cheney regime whack job?

a) Obama

b) Dodd

c) Clinton

b) Biden

Correct Answers

1….e

2….d

3….b

4….c

]]>