When it came time to cave in to rank right wing fear pandering concerning transferring detainees to the US they knew just what to do.

Like Harry Reid, our illustrious Senate Majority Leader said "you can't put them in jail if you don't set them free".

You can't argue with that.

Are we in the process of wrapping up the wars? I'd be happy to see Obama get his hundred billion if I really believed that!

Isn't that what three branches of govt. are for? I made a mistake in my last post. This action of Congress, loyalty to the President; not the people, not the Consititution--that's the real definition of the cult of personality.

I want to know where that loyalty will be when they try to pass health care reform. How many blue dogs will vote against it, despite Obama's appeals? I think it's a convenient excuse for those changing their votes on this war bill. "We are doing it to support the president." But when it comes time to pass health care reform with a public option, that loyalty is going to be gone.

Grand Jury Subpoenas Commenters' Personal Information From Newspaper

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=107864

Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

What's really pathetic is that many of the Democrats currently in Congress were elected mainly for the purpose of defunding the Iraq war and bringing the troops home. The 2006 election was all about that. Plainly the Democratic Party has been deeply dishonest and cynical about Iraq. If Iraq is truly a "war of choice", as Barack Obama recently called it, then it is now the Democratic Party's war of choice. 2006 looks like ancient history.

We aren't going to be "wrapping up" Afghanistan anytime soon. If anything we are going to be expanding it. I'm 32 years old, If I make it to 50, I bet we'll still be fighting there. When you think about it, we've been fighting wars in Afghanistan for 30 years. From funding the insurgents against the Russians to taking on the Taliban. What strategic purpose does Afghanistan hold? Anyone know, because it don't seem worth it from my perspective. What are wasting blood and treasure over, for a 3rd world ass backwards country?

It's not just health care ... it's DADT .. it's repealing DOMA ... I could go on and on .. hell .. if the Blue Dogs bend over like this for Obama .. why not Single Payer health care? .. or financial/banking reform... but the list is endless of course

Of the Late Republic (not the Imperial period) seems more apt. Those meek Roman Senators abdicated their own authority and ceded vast powers of imperium to, in rapid succession: Sulla, Marius, Caesar, Cicero, Crassus, Pompey, Caesar again, and finally Octavian (Augustus Caesar) after a prolonged period of internecine warfare. The result was the transformation from Republic to Empire. Only a few backbenchers like Cato the Younger made any noise along the way.

Of the Late American Republic, the US Congress abdicated their own authority and ceded vast powers of imperium to, in rapid succession:

Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, and finally Obama after a prolonged period of transferring public wealth to private coffers. The result was the transformation from Republic to Empire. Only a few backbenchers like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinic made any noise along the way.

Because lately you've gone a little overboard.

I'm a avid reader and admired the way you called out the Bush cronies for the last eight years, but honestly, I think you've lost focus. It's certainly a little early to start bashing Obama over adjustments in his policies. There are enough neocon wackos who still think Obama is a Muslim bashing everything he does, thank you.

I think you've failed to appreciate the differences between the current administration and the cabal that just left. I'm reminded of them every time Darth Cheney, the most self-serving lying bastard ever to claw his way into Washington, crawls out of his lair to spout lies and accusations on TV. Compared to the past eight years we are living in a comparative Golden Age--I call it such because already I'm afraid in 4-8 years the forces of darkness will elect someone like Palin.

As for the House Dems following Obama before their own judgment: they could do a lot worse. Oh, yeah, they did that between 2002-2005, when they passed the Republican Enabling Acts limiting our freedoms. At least this ringleader has a brain and decent motives.

It would be much better if the congressmen were acting on behalf of the people financing their campaigns rather than the person whom over half the country voted for.

More to the point, Obama ceded ground, he did not demand loyalty, he demanded tit for tat: I take out the photo-banning provision, you give me the votes.

That may not be exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, but it certainly has some semblance to the spirit of compromise. Something that is still sorely missing.

Glenn is a very consistent and intelligent voice, which is why I enjoy his opinion. What I find simultaneously commendable and frustrating about him, however, is his reluctance to see shades of gray. This vote was in many respects congress doing precisely what they are supposed to do.

Don't they?

So many Congresses have had fights with Presidents of the same party in the past. I expect the Congress to represent the people, those who sent them to Congress, not those who pay (interest groups)(as in medical care legislation, including the nursing home lobby which keeps many of my "peeps" - disabled and older, locked away when it's cheaper to live at home with aides, and often, we don't get a choice of whether to live in our own homes or get "locked up") or those who threaten to cut off

funding from the "top" (i.e. the President).

Shame! as Jeremy Scahill puts it on his blog RebelReports.

I heard GG on DemocracyNow this morning on secrecy continued, and am awaiting the transcript going up.