The official Dude's Obama got one right thread.

[dude1394]

I'm not sure how populated this one will be...but when he's right, he's right. Good for him...the treatment of Columbia by the demagoguing democrats has been terrible.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/...rack-obama.php

Good on him. He's sticking by our ally President Uribe in Colombia. Investors Business Daily has the details:

Hugo Chavez may have gotten a grinning handshake from President Obama in Trinidad. But it was our authentic friend and ally, Colombia, that got substance. The president got one right... It started Saturday, when he put himself next to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe at lunch and then studiously exchanged notes.
Having listened to Uribe, (and that must have been a nice dose of sanity after enduring 50 minutes of ravings from Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, or weird conspiracy theories by Bolivia's Evo Morales), Obama then seemed to realize that the long-stalled Colombia free trade agreement should have been passed yesterday.
The president announced that his team must find a way to pass the agreement. With world trade down 80%, the pact opens new markets to the U.S. He demanded immediate action, asking Colombia's trade minister to fly to Washington this week.
Then it got even better: Obama invited Uribe to the White House and promised to visit Colombia himself, allowing the Colombians to lay out for him their vast economic and social progress, and their desire to integrate into global trade.

[92bDad]

^^ when credit is due, credit must be given ^^

[Kirobaito]

I know nothing of this specific circumstance, but Alvaro Uribe's one good leader. Latin America would be a lot better off if it produced more folks like him.

[dude1394]

Another oneon the correctomundo list. Psstt..don't tell anyone...

SSen. Obama: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."

Rev. Warren: "Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?"

Sen. Obama: "No, I would not."

Rev. Warren: "Why not?"

Sen. Obama: "Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution. ... I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions." — Chicago Sun-Times blog

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm not sure how populated this one will be...but when he's right, he's right. Good for him...the treatment of Columbia by the demagoguing democrats has been terrible.

obama supported the trade pact with peru, and said during the campaign he woud support a columbia trade pact if it contained labor and environmental clauses.

he has been very critical of the trade agreement with s korea, my guess is that deal will be redone before it is brought for ratification.

bottom line, obama is more of a free trade guy than a protectionist. apparently he isn't as buddy with the labor unions as was alleged.

[dude1394]

Another one....This is one case where I"m glad Barry's word can't be trusted.

Wonder if the lefties will try to impeach him. Probably not...Heh...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us...er=rss&emc=rss

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.
Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.
Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama’s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.
Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

[dude1394]

Excellent....A lot tougher when you are actually responsible...eh barry?

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.








On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

[dude1394]

Another friday...another good thing. Funny...everything that Barry does well seems to be announced on fridays. Weird...

WSJ: Obama’s Military Tribunals: Another Friday, another bow to Bush’s antiterror legacy. “In any event, Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney — and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again.”

[dude1394]

Way to go Barry!!

In a survey published today, Gallup finds that more Americans now consider themselves "pro-life" than "pro-choice," by a 51 percent-42 percent margin:

[mcsluggo]

the survey designer in me HAS to question such an abrupt swing in a fairly stable series... but we will see.

But in the end, either way things stand with basically the country basically completely split between the two positions. However, a bunch of the "pro-life camp" view this issue as THE issue that trumps all other issues... so they have some momentum in their corner. Still, I think if it starts to look like roe v wade will be overturned, you might see quite a jump of people back to the pro choice side.

[dude1394]

I don't even think roe v. wade needs to be overturned really....I just believe that some pretty strict requirements have to be put down before you kill a child. The pro-abortion crowd believe just the opposite. They are the mirror-image of the NRA in their politicking.

Of course the NRA does have the constitution backing them up...so it's somewhat to be expected. Pro-abortion...not so much imo.

[mcsluggo]

i think there are very few "pro-abortion" people.... most people are squeemish on the subject.

but most "pro-choice" people would like to see its usage low, but it still there as an option in some form or another. Personally I hate abortion, but don't think its abolition is the way to go... i would very much rather see much more effort placed on finding persuasive alternates to abortion for scared girls/women. This is an area where the anti-abortion crowd is just starting to make headway, and it is a damn good and welcome move.... and about fricking time, I think.

[dude1394]

The pro-choice folks are just like the pro-guns folks in that any movement to limit abortions must be resisted like a nuclear weapon because of a slippery slope. They are both irrational.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The pro-choice folks are just like the pro-guns folks in that any movement to limit abortions must be resisted like a nuclear weapon because of a slippery slope. They are both irrational.

Except for that whole 2nd Amendment thing.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Except for that whole 2nd Amendment thing.

Yup...the pro-guns folks have a lot more on their side than the pro-abortion group. But it may not matter, the pro-abortion group has the media on it's side...that may trump the constitution.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The pro-choice folks are just like the pro-guns folks in that any movement to limit abortions must be resisted like a nuclear weapon because of a slippery slope. They are both irrational.

I largely agree with you here... except to say that both playing sides of the abortion issue are very prone to digging bunkers and giving no ground. BUT.... most ACTUAL PEOPLE lie somewhere between the two warring camps.

The "hate abortion at all cost" camp is much bigger than the "I love abortion and want to hand out free abortions to all middle school students with their subsidized pint of milk" camp... but i think the majority of people still lie in a wishy washy center camp that is turned off by both sides, would like to see abortion usage diminished and othr options promoted much more strenuoulsly, but are not comfortable with completely abolishing it.

problem is, there is no capital to be won by a politician occupying this center ground here. The electorate that occupies this ground largely doesn't view abortion as an end-all-be-all issue, so won't be swayed much by this stance (no gain), but BOTH extreme sides (who DO view this as THE ONLY issue) will hate this politician with every fiber of their being... and work hard to kill him/her (significant cost).

This issue just lends itself to grandstanding and intransigence.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

The "hate abortion at all cost" camp is much bigger than the "I love abortion and want to hand out free abortions to all middle school students with their subsidized pint of milk" camp...

Is there anyone in that second camp who isn't part of the ruling class?


(because I've never met a "pro-abortion" person - only "pro choice" people, and there certainly is a difference...)

[alexamenos]

The "hate abortion at all cost" camp is much bigger than the "I love abortion and want to hand out free abortions to all middle school students with their subsidized pint of milk" camp...

The 'we love abortion camp' may be smaller, but they're quite effective and arguably more politically powerful than those in the 'murdering babies is always wrong' camp.

fwiw, I'm a little more moderate on this than most might guess -- I can accept that in some cases a little infanticide is plausibly the less bad of a number of bad choices. I'm mostly just annoyed by moral and intellectual cowardice that permeates the defense of abortion lovers. For instance...

...picking back up on the eugenics theme -- it's common knowledge that the birthrate of down's syndrome children has dropped dramatically since the legalization of abortion, especially with improvements in non-invasive pre-natal screening. IOW, legal abortion --> mommas and doctors killing retarded babies.

If one-in-20 of the "safe, legal and rare" crowd would actually take a fairly unequivocal stand and say that killing retarded babies is wrong and the state has an interest in preventing people from killing babies because the babies are retards, I'd be mildly surprised. No...I'd be very surprised.

Bear in mind....the folks who won't say that it is unequivoclly wrong to murder retarded babies are by and large folks who don't mind the State telling grown-ups that they have to wear seatbelts....they don't mind taking one-3rd of your income....they (in many if not most cases) don't have any moral objections to conscription....they generally don't mind telling you what to do, taking your money and are willing to force you against your will to travel half-way 'round the world and kill or be killed....

....that is, folks who defend a woman's choice, on principle and to the nth degree, are by and large folks who don't defend an individual's sovereignty on anything else.*

and again...I'm not talking about the hardcore abortion lover crowd -- I'm talking about the 'safe, legal and rare' crowd.

anyhoo....when two sides of an issue are framed by one side thinking it's wrong to kill babies and the other side advocating killing retards because they're retards, I don't think there is anything moderate or reasonable or meritorious about positioning oneself in the middle.

so give me the nuts in the 'it's always wrong' crowd any day.



*(I recognize that a lot of libertarian types are pro-choice. While I disagree with them on whether the life of the fetus trumps the mother's rights, I acknowledge their consistency....but these libertarians are powerless so I'm more concerned with the nazi-left's opinion of things.)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

The 'we love abortion camp' may be smaller, but they're quite effective and arguably more politically powerful than those in the 'murdering babies is always wrong' camp.

fwiw, I'm a little more moderate on this than most might guess -- I can accept that in some cases a little infanticide is plausibly the less bad of a number of bad choices. I'm mostly just annoyed by moral and intellectual cowardice that permeates the defense of abortion lovers. For instance...

...picking back up on the eugenics theme -- it's common knowledge that the birthrate of down's syndrome children has dropped dramatically since the legalization of abortion, especially with improvements in non-invasive pre-natal screening. IOW, legal abortion --> mommas and doctors killing retarded babies.

If one-in-20 of the "safe, legal and rare" crowd would actually take a fairly unequivocal stand and say that killing retarded babies is wrong and the state has an interest in preventing people from killing babies because the babies are retards, I'd be mildly surprised. No...I'd be very surprised.

Bear in mind....the folks who won't say that it is unequivoclly wrong to murder retarded babies are by and large folks who don't mind the State telling grown-ups that they have to wear seatbelts....they don't mind taking one-3rd of your income....they (in many if not most cases) don't have any moral objections to conscription....they generally don't mind telling you what to do, taking your money and are willing to force you against your will to travel half-way 'round the world and kill or be killed....

....that is, folks who defend a woman's choice, on principle and to the nth degree, are by and large folks who don't defend an individual's sovereignty on anything else.*

and again...I'm not talking about the hardcore abortion lover crowd -- I'm talking about the 'safe, legal and rare' crowd.

anyhoo....when two sides of an issue are framed by one side thinking it's wrong to kill babies and the other side advocating killing retards because they're retards, I don't think there is anything moderate or reasonable or meritorious about positioning oneself in the middle.

so give me the nuts in the 'it's always wrong' crowd any day.



*(I recognize that a lot of libertarian types are pro-choice. While I disagree with them on whether the life of the fetus trumps the mother's rights, I acknowledge their consistency....but these libertarians are powerless so I'm more concerned with the nazi-left's opinion of things.)

Damn...that was well said.

[mcsluggo]

yes, very well said.

[dude1394]

Judge Tosses Telecom Spy Suits

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed lawsuits targeting the nation’s telecommunication companies for their participation in President George W. Bush’s once-secret electronic eavesdropping program.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker upheld summer legislation protecting the companies from the lawsuits. The legislation, which then-Sen. Barack Obama voted for, also granted the government the authority to monitor American’s telecommunications without warrants if the subject was communicating with somebody overseas suspected of terrorism.

[dude1394]

Another winner for the Obama admin. Good job...Hillary???

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...1&show=1&rss=1

In a welcome about-face, the State Department told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Richard Lugar, R-Ind., in a letter Tuesday that the U.S. would no longer threaten sanctions on Honduras for ousting its president, Mel Zelaya, last June 28.



Nor will it insist on Zelaya's return to power. As it turns out, the U.S. Senate can't find any legal reason why the Honduran Supreme Court's refusal to let Zelaya stay in office beyond the time allowed by Honduran law constitutes a "military coup."


This marks a shift. The U.S. at first supported Zelaya, a man who had been elected democratically but didn't govern that way. Now they're reaching out to average Hondurans, the real democrats.


Sure, the U.S. continues to condemn Zelaya's ouster and still seeks mediation of the dispute through Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. But no U.S. sanctions means Hondurans have won.

[dude1394]

Good to see Barry coming to his senses. Now hopefully the OAS will come to theirs. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/amer...y/1175216.html

TEGUCIGALPA -- The Obama administration has backed away from its call to restore ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power and instead put the onus on him for taking ``provocative actions'' that polarized his country and led to his overthrow on June 28. The new position was contained in a letter this week to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., that also rejected calls by some of Zelaya's backers to impose harsh economic sanctions against Honduras. While condemning the coup, the letter pointedly fails to call for Zelaya's return. ``Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual,'' said the letter to the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The new U.S. position is likely to undercut diplomatic efforts to bring about Zelaya's return, analysts said.

Maybe needed a little political shove?? Good go GOP.

It may, in time, help the administration win confirmation for three top State Department officials President Barack Obama has appointed to deal with the region. Senate Republicans have put their nominations on hold to protest U.S. policy in Honduras.

[dude1394]

Never mind. Jimmy Carter is back.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCan.../idUSN27328207

WASHINGTON, Aug 27 (Reuters) - U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation.

The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has yet to make a decision on the matter although one was likely soon.

Washington has already suspended about $18 million aid to Honduras following the June 28 coup and this would be formally cut if the determination is made because of a U.S. law barring aid "to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree."

The official said that $215 million in grant funding from the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation to Honduras would also have to end should Clinton make the determination that a military coup took place.

[dude1394]

What a cluster this dude is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...711784150.html

If the Obama administration were a flotilla of ships, it might be sending out an SOS right about now. ObamaCare has hit the political equivalent of an iceberg. And last week the president’s international prestige was broadsided by the Scots, who set free the Lockerbie bomber without the least consideration of American concerns. Mr. Obama’s campaign promise of restoring common sense to budget management is sleeping with the fishes.



This administration needs a win. Or more accurately, it can't bear another loss right now. Most especially it can't afford to be defeated by the government of a puny Central American country that doesn't seem to know its place in the world and dares to defy the imperial orders of Uncle Sam.


I'm referring, of course, to Honduras, which despite two months of intense pressure from Washington is still refusing to reinstate Manuel Zelaya, its deposed president. Last week the administration took off the gloves and sent a message that it would use everything it has to break the neck of the Honduran democracy. Its bullying might work. But it will never be able to brag about what it has done.


The most recent example of the Obama-style Good Neighbor Policy was the announcement last week that visa services for Hondurans are suspended indefinitely, and that some $135 million in bilateral aid might be cut. But these are only the public examples of its hardball tactics. Much nastier stuff is going on behind the scenes, practiced by a presidency that once promised the American people greater transparency and a less interventionist foreign policy.
................

It is also asking Hondurans to risk the fate of Venezuela. They know how Venezuela's Hugo Chávez went from being democratically elected the first time, in 1998, to making himself dictator for life. He did it by destroying his country's institutional checks and balances. When Mr. Zelaya moved to do the same in Honduras, the nation cut him off at the pass.


For Mr. Chávez, Mr. Zelaya's return to power is crucial. The Venezuelan is actively spreading his Marxist gospel around the region and Mr. Zelaya was his man in Tegucigalpa.

[dude1394]

US is condemned for the pre-emptive use of Hillary Clinton.

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...rce=videoembed

[dude1394]

I expect this won't last but it is refreshing to think Barry isn't a complete idiot.

The Obama administration has shelved a plan to raise more than $200 billion in new taxes on multinational companies following a blitz of complaints from businesses.


A contingent of Silicon Valley chief executives, for example, traveled to Washington in late September to speak out against the proposal to change how the federal government taxes overseas profits. They came away from meetings with key congressmen relieved.

[Mavdog]

Honduras' ousted president, government sign pact
By JUAN ZAMORANO, Associated Press Writer Juan Zamorano, Associated Press Writer
1 hr 28 mins ago

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Representatives of ousted President Manuel Zelaya finally reached an agreement with the interim government that could help end the monthslong dispute over Honduras' June 28 coup, and possibly pave the way for Zelaya's reinstatement.

The Organization of American States announced the deal late Thursday but did not release a text of the accord, in which Zelaya appears to have agreed to throw his fate into the hands of a congress that has largely supported interim President Roberto Micheletti.

"We are optimistic because Hondurans can reach agreements that are fulfilled," Zelaya told Radio Globo, an opposition station. "This signifies my return to power in the coming days, and peace for Honduras."

The agreement, if it holds, could represent a much-needed foreign policy victory for the United States, which dispatched a senior team of diplomats to coax both sides back to the table.

Speaking to reporters in Islamabad, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called it "an historic agreement," noting "this is a big step forward for the inter-American system."

The agreement appears to soften Micheletti's previous stance that the Supreme Court — which has already rejected Zelaya's reinstatement — decide the issue. Instead, the high court would make a recommendation, but the final decision would apparently be left to a vote in Congress.

The agreement would create a power-sharing government and bind both sides to recognize the Nov. 29 presidential elections. The international community had threatened to not recognize the vote if Zelaya is not reinstated, but on Thursday, OAS Political Affairs Secretary Victor Rico told reporters that "the United States and the OAS will accompany Honduras in the elections" as a result of the accord.

Clinton said the elections would go forward and the U.S. will work with Honduras to ensure the election is legitimate.

The deal was greeted by all sides as a victory in the long-running dispute that has polarized the country and mired it in diplomatic isolation.

"Tonight I am pleased to announce that ... I authorized my negotiating team to sign a final accord that marks the beginning of the end to the political situation in the country," Micheletti said in a televised address.

The team of U.S. diplomats had worked over the last two days to coax both sides back to the table.

"This is a great moment for Honduras, and its people should be proud that Hondurans have achieved this accord," said Tom Shannon, U.S. assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, who arrived with the U.S. delegation Wednesday.

Rico said "they (the negotiators) are the heroes of Honduran democracy ... and this is a great moment for Honduras." The OAS had tried for months to bring the two sides together.

Micheletti called the pact a "significant concession" on his part, and said that one point would require foreign powers to drop sanctions or aid cutoffs imposed after the coup, and send observers to the elections.

The Supreme Court has already rejected Zelaya's return, saying he was replaced as president on June 28 because he violated the Constitution by pressing for a vote on potential constitutional reforms. Zelaya's opponents accuse him of attempting to end a ban on presidential term limits — something the leftist leader denies.

Zelaya, who is holed up at the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, the capital, has said Congress should make the decision on his reinsatement, even though he currently enjoys the support of only about a fifth of the legislators.

Zelaya was flown out of the country by soldiers on June 28, but slipped back in Sept. 21. It was unclear if he would be allowed to leave the Brazilian Embassy under the deal.

The interim government has vowed to arrest Zelaya if he leaves the diplomatic mission, and filed a complaint Thursday at the U.N.'s highest court accusing Brazil of meddling in Honduran affairs by giving Zelaya refuge. The International Court of Justice declined to comment on whether it would hear the case, and Brazil's Foreign Ministry said the government was evaluating the complaint.

Brazil supports Zelaya's fight to return to power and has not pressured him or his supporters to leave.

Earlier on Thursday, police fired tear gas to disperse a march of about 1,000 Zelaya supporters as they neared the hotel where the talks were taking place.

[dude1394]

... Waiting for that one..

Here is a liberal blog's take on it, note the comments, funny.

Zelaya To Be Returned To Honduran Presidency


By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:37:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags) Share This: Digg!

Good news:

The government of Roberto Micheletti, which had refused to let Mr. Zelaya return, signed an agreement with Mr. Zelaya’s negotiators late Thursday that would pave the way for the Honduran Congress to restore the ousted president and allow him to serve out the remaining three months of his term. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed on Friday that Mr. Zelaya and Mr. Micheletti had approved what she called “an historic agreement.”

Good. The principle is important and must be upheld. Practically speaking, Zelaya was, in essence, stopped in his campaign to overturn the Honduran Constitution's prohibition on reelection of Presidents. He gets to serve his last 2 months in office. A new President is elected on November 29. And this is all over in January 2010. In a way, this is a perfect ending to this story.
Speaking for me only

comments..

The principle is important and must be upheld. (none / 0) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:02:25 AM EST


Is that the principle that the Honduran Supreme Court should be ignored in stoppong a presidential coup?


Works for me (none / 0) (#2)
by Steve M on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:13:16 AM EST

Being on the same side of an issue as Miguel Estrada was getting vexing for me anyway.

[Mavdog]

both sides of this drama were in the wrong. zelaya was wrong for ignoring the court in his drive to have a national referendum, and the military was wrong to throw zelaya out of the country.

it was great theater tho. zelaya's attempt to enter honduras, only to step on the ground for a minute and turn around. the secret entry into the brazilian embassy, then the ridiculous interview where zelaya talks about the directing of radio waves and israeli mercenaries (although the underlying anti-semitism expressed by zelaya and also chavez isn't funny, it's disturbing)

good to have a positive outcome.

[dude1394]

John Kerry...what a clown. I would like to see Koh's analysis...since it was held up as something Demint I believe was supposed to look at to understand the nuance of the US's honduran policy.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/87724/

THOUGHTS ON JOHN KERRY, HONDURAS, AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS:

According to this report, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) asked the Library of Congress to retract the report because it ““contains factual errors and is based on a flawed legal analysis that has been refuted by experts from the United States, the Organization of American States and Honduras” and “has contributed to the political crisis” in Honduras. The Library of Congress stands by the report, however, and is preparing a response to Senator Kerry and Representative Berman.
If the two lawmakers belive the Law Library of Congress report is flawed, there are better responses than seeking a retraction. For one, they could demonstrate the report’s failings, perhaps by pointing to alternative analyses that are more persuasive. Perhaps, they could even encourage the State Department to release the memorandum written by Harold Koh supporting the U.S. government’s position that the removal of President Zelaya constituted an illegal coup.

Koh has been less willing to stand behind his analysis than the Library of Congress has been willing to stand behind its. . . .

[mcsluggo]

Zelaya is a clown. and every single person in the US State Dept (and in the Obama administration) will be happy to see the door his his arse on the way out. BUT everybody wants to see it occur in an orderly above board manner. I am amazed at the hay the right is trying to harvest from this event. It frankly ONLY points to the fact that if the Obama admin says the sky is blue, then 75 blogs (and dude subscribes to all of them) will immediately scream out in agonized fury

"*&*A^E()* YOU A$$H*LE!!!! THE SKY IS WHITE WITH BLUISH TINGES OR BLUE WITH WHITE SPOTS!!!!!!" and then sputter in rage for a month or two.

[dude1394]

It appears the only sputterer here is yourself. It continues to appear that the only thing remotely "unconstitutional" was deporting the dude, everything else was plenty above board. We should have stayed out of it.

[mcsluggo]

Once again, i assume by "we" you mean the every single country in the OAS, that were on the same side on this issue?

right?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It appears the only sputterer here is yourself. It continues to appear that the only thing remotely "unconstitutional" was deporting the dude, everything else was plenty above board. We should have stayed out of it.

we don't have the ability to "stay out of it". we are just too connected.

yes, it is typically "unconstitutional" and certainly illegal to deport a citizen, after all the act of deportation is in direct opposition to all that citizenship entails.

especially when they "deported' a citizen without any trial.....

so now we are at a culmination in this soap opera, and there is credit to the current administration for getting the two sides to the dispute in agreement on how to reach an end. thank goodness.

[dude1394]

Allright...
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/87793/

JERRY POURNELLE:

One estimate is that 500 nuclear power plants would make America energy independent. I think that is optimistic in that an abundance of electricity doesn’t mean we won’t need to import oil for transportation needs, but it would certainly take us a long way toward independence. The cost would be in the order of 2 billion per plant (I would think less; that is the first one might be 4 billion, but the 400th would be considerably less than a billion; but call it 2 billion). That is one trillion dollars, comparable to the TARP or stimulus — and for once a deficit would be financing something real.
It is less than the cost of the war, and less than the war is going to cost if we continue. Cheap reliable energy would be one major step toward economic recovery. Low cost energy plus freedom will bring prosperity. If we have the energy we can work on the freedom. The whole thing could be accomplished in four years. Of course the ravening wolves in the Congress won’t do it — but then it’s not likely that this is the kind of hope and change we can believe in from the current White House.
But it would work. France knows the value of nuclear power. Why can’t we learn it?

You’d think that “be more like France” would sell these days, but nooo. . .

Oops..nevermind. wrong party..

[mcsluggo]

that one works for me

[dude1394]

Nobel Peace Price Acceptance Speech..

Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

[dude1394]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ar-bomber.html

Under the category of looks-like-about-12-days-too-late, the State Department has announced it is revoking the U.S. visa for suspected Nigerian underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
That will show him and who knows how many others that the Obama administration really means business.

[dude1394]

Hell if he opened Anwar I might have to vo...(nah..never happen).

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.