could the real president pleae show himself?

i rea this speech was nmot penned by obama [no surpirse there, ask newt?]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9100.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9BYWj8-BdU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpeacepink%2Ening%2Ecom%2Fprofile%2Fmiss%5Fkitty&feature=player_embedded

pakistan

[darpa:sketch 2 draw?]

Obama, drones, on:

the original drawing:2 a news quip:

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=0ca906632fecd60a1e48b8e5cd0d44c8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fafp%2F20090708%2Fcapt.photo_1247059442892-1-0.jpg%3Fx%3D213%26y%3D201%26xc%3D1%26yc%3D1%26wc%3D409%26hc%3D386%26q%3D85%26sig%3DLq0D56q43Gip2NX0BO.nYA--

need an urologist?

Urology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Urology is the surgical specialty that focuses on the urinary tracts of males and females, and on the reproductive system of males. Medical professionals specializing in the field of urology are called urologists and are trained to diagnose, treat, and manage patients with urological disorders. The organs covered by urology include the ureters, urinary bladder, urethra, and the male reproductive organs (testes, epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles, prostate and penis).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urology

map of pakistan:

http://stjohnsdemocrats.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/pakistan_map.jpg

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=121732800481&h=2MOYq&u=36hBC&ref=nf

[now, female and prety in pink]

Robbie Williams- Mr Bojangles & Frank Sinartra Tribute!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9BYWj8-BdU

When we abandon the principles founded in the Constitution to combat terrorism today, the terrorists have won. Part of what makes this country what it is, and not lost on our aggressors, is the rule of law that allows our courts to preside over innocence and guilt. I may be wrong, but it seems terrorists want to not only carry out their 'holy' acts, but also in doing so break the enemy's system and its principles. If we do away with our moral principles they have broken us, broken our system, broken true justice. If anything, we should strengthen our rule of law and have those overseeing detainees (for the set period of time before trial) do it all EXACTLY by the rule of law (needless to say without torture) to show our enemies (and the world) that we still believe in true justice regardless of others' wills to break that truth.

This MUST be the direction we move if we want to dissuade further violence against us. If those that claim they are fighting our system's philosophy with their violent acts then we can't let our philosophy of true justice falter. By not doing so, It would diffuse the situation. They'd be shocked that we are withholding to this truth in the face of what they've done (which again, I hope we never see another attack on us come true); it is NOT however too late to reverse course now and not wait for another one to do so.

Whatever else is true, even talking about imprisoning people based on accusations of which they have been exonerated is a truly grotesque perversion of everything that our justice system and Constitution are supposed to guarantee.

And if the Republican Party still stood for what it claimed to stand for back during the Cold War when they gave rocket launchers to Hekmatyr who turned around and allied with the Taliban after they rode into Kabul...

Oh hell, what was I saying?

What do conservatives stand for these days? Freedom? Rule of law? The American way?

These days they mainly exist to oppose gay marriage, arugula, and anyone with an Ivy League education.

No wonder the political dialectic is producing such ill results. It's been broken. There isn't a major party that stands up for freedom any more.

Thank you for bringing to our attention the late comments made by you and pow wow in yesterday's thread.

I missed them yesterday...but I'm ever so glad I didn't miss them completely.

I don't want to stray off topic, but several paragraphs of pow wow's comment, well, rocked my world.

As for you, Ondelette, I thought I heard saxophone music wafting from the bridge. Welcome back from your woodshedding. A clear head makes for clear commentary and your recent remarks have been both clear and incisive.

Thank you for that correction. Indeed, it was the "quiet" American, but I guess I wrote ugly because I was thinking about exceptionalism. Still no excuse.

How *dare* you criticize Obama for not coming through on his progressive platform? You're starting to sound like all those kooks who criticized him before the election and predicted such a thing. Maybe he should preemptively detain you, you're starting to sound downright anti-American lately!

Good post.

I’d like to point out a dimension to the discussion that has not come up yet. That is that the Obama administration is taking stands always in favour of maximum presidential power regardless of how they feel personaly about the merits of such stands. A couple of reasons can be inferred:

• The advocates of taking these stands in the administration may not believe in them personally but feel that for political reasons such a position by the administration is necessary.

• Advocates of taking these stands in the administration may believe that it is not their job to put limits on the president. In their view it is the job of the judicial system to establesh these limits. Further, they may personally hope for clearer limits.

Unfortunately these beliefs enable the pursuit of policies that slowly erode our constitution.

'nuff said

What's your solution Glenn? Criticism needs to be followed with solutions, and one 'rule of law' solution does not fit all detainees.

In order: he doesn't need to present any, it doesn't, and it does.

I really can't say it any plainer. Glenn is an on-line columnist, not an office-holder or policy-maker. And there's no great rule that says one can only comment/critique/criticisze a problematic policy if one had an immedate alternative to offer.

Try again.