Comments on: Come Saturday Morning: Iran’s Visual Reality

By: jackie

jackie — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:29:41 +0000

I’ve actually been here for 20 years and I am still surprised by the lack of interest and knowledge of most folks (not here though :) )

By: akak

akak — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:13:12 +0000

na, pretty much only rich muslims, who rail against the “death tax,” are republicans. though in 2000, many democrat muslims also voted bush because they didn’t like joe lieberman.

By: peony

peony — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:17:54 +0000

I’ve also bookmarked the Photo Activists for Peace site. Thanks, PW!

By: LS

LS — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:09:53 +0000

Report…Israel could survive nuclear war with Iran. These people are batshit crazy:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articl.....11,00.html

By: bigbrother

bigbrother — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:25:25 +0000

Hello Phoenix Woman;
Amy Goodman had interesting pakistania guest yesterday. It was very informative and a constructive criticism of USA policy in the ME and South East Asia. Check it out, some history and an evaluation of the coming troop increase in Afghanistan. Essentially, occupying either Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or others puts the population at odds with us and does not solve the political problem. We have used a military solution that is not a solution. Worth a look if you want to understand our foreign policy.
Thank you for the interesting posts. Happy New Year!

By: wigwam

wigwam — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:12:47 +0000

Sounds like a more sophisticated version of John Yoo.

By: kiddo

kiddo — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:08:58 +0000

That’s a decent question. I think.

By: TeddySanFran

TeddySanFran — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:08:19 +0000

I sent that little bit of case law to various people, including a reporter for the WaPo. His response was that he thinks that Bush might have a way around it if the house that stayed open (or was brought back into session) wasn’t the one from which the bill originated. Since budget bills come from the House, and the Senate stayed open (though the House did not adjourn sine die, IIRC), Bush might have an out here.

According to the Washington Post reporter who responded to my email with the subject “Not in Session???”

I know the Senate is still gaveling in, but my understanding is that for the purposes of a veto, the fact that the House is adjourned makes a
traditional veto improper. There is some dispute about this. The House is the chamber of origin for the defense bill, so under the traditional veto process Bush would send the bill back there — which of course he can’t do at the moment. But the murkiness is one reason why he hedged his bets and is following both procedures .. traditional and pocket.

It sounds like the press is going to treat this as a moot point, since Shrub’s both pocket- and traditional-vetoed the bill.

By: LS

LS — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:07:24 +0000

Re: My #84 - this from Christy’s Cheney post yesterday:

“Cheney’s core concerns, “the iron issues,” as his aide Mary Matalin referred to them, were the economy, energy, the White House legislative agenda — and, of course, national security. To address those concerns, Cheney put together a staff that was unparalleled in the history of the vice presidency, in the process expanding its powers accordingly.”

By: kiddo

kiddo — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:07:11 +0000

That’s could be true. But I think Israel would conclude where such an attack(s) eminated from. And my thought is an indirect attack by Iran, is still an “attack”. And I doubt two things: That the Israeli goverment will care whether it’s indirect. And that the Israelis won’t respond. ;0)