eyesonobama.com — A pair of bills making their way through the House and Senate that would authorize President George W. Bush to impose a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz are gaining traction and co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, seemingly assuring their passage when they reach a floor vote. Analysts say that a naval blockade would amount to an act of war.
Jun 29, 2008 View in Crawl 4
drbernieJun 30, 2008
the opposite of "pro-gress"Ha! I never get tired of that one.
cyberdorkJun 30, 2008
They problem with Libertarians is that they are idealists and have problems accepting reality. Libertarianism is the perfect system for a world where everyone has an IQ of 150 and a lousy system for a world with an average of 100.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2008
Sponsor: Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN]Sponsor: Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
duggtodeathJun 30, 2008
How polite of us -- I forgot that Congress had the ability to declare war. I was thinking The Decider was gonna do it.
mmmmmbiscuitsJun 30, 2008
Sorry to put a tourniquet on that bleeding heart of yours, but the United States is under no obligation to sell anyone--even OPEC--the excess food we raise.
beesaretastyJun 30, 2008
But putting up a blockade for all food imports is not merely not selling. Anyway, I don't give a crap. Just sparking conversation. I'm hardly a bleeding heart.
westerner22Jul 1, 2008
BARACK OBAMA JUNE 20, 2008"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past."After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act."Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
westerner22Jul 1, 2008
Iran has not attacked any other country in several hundred years. To start anything now, they are much too weak, and would be destroyed by Israel in no time. We are loosing in Afghanistan and have no army left for the two current wars. So is Bush heading for the draft and Marshal Law to screw up the elections? Or simply expand the politics of fear, to gain a number of votes a la 3pm phone call - reality show?
whiteboyJul 1, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002567.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...</a>