Jon: As a commenter points out, neither Feingold nor Kennedy are signatories. Why Clinton and not Obama? Can you explain the politics behind the letter? (Maybe you did it earlier and, if I missed it, sorry.)

I can't honesty say I understand what's going on. The absence of Feingold and Kennedy suggests to me that not much can be read into people not signing -- beyond that this may have been badly organized and at the last minute.

More like "none was a Republican." Let's not lose sight of subject-verb agreement or all is lost. The terrorists may already have won.

The terrorists may already have won.

Didn't you get the email? It happened this morning, which is why I felt free to disregard the rules of grammar.

Disregard the rules of English? That's unpossible!

Grottman: I'll try not to take it personally, but WHY, WHY did you overlook my grammatical mistake "neither/nor... are" ? Must the terrorists always win?

The letter states: "We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran."

Actually, that's not true.

The War Powers Resolution of Nov 7, 1973 states:
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities . . .and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm

Sure it's unconstitutional but so what. The Supremes have refused to touch it.

I imagine that someone in VP Cheney's office has already created a reason why prior consultation with Congress is not possible in this case. Having something to do with Israel, no doubt.

biden n obama n hrc: maybe it's all a con: they take turns half-assedly supporting aggression n half-assedly opposing it: then when the bombs start to fall they'll give passionate stump speeches denouncing dubya but their actual voting will continue to reflect democratic bending-over to please. or they may skip the speeches.

close your eyes, and picture:

take one: generic ambitious senator x/y/z, holding up a shiny bauble, as the peons ooh and ah. in take two, senator x/y/z is still holding up the shiny bauble, but no oohs and ahs. trouble in river city! an aide appears from off-screen, whispers something in senator x/y/z's ear, and senator x/y/z shifts the bauble slightly, revealing a different side to this audience, who now ooh and ah accordingly.

(I joke, but I've been looking at some of my old posts from 4-5 years ago and I realize there was a (relatively recent)time when I didn't look at things like this, not even remotely.)

Bernard, I only have the resources to fight on one front at a time. Having committed them all to the subject-verb disagreement in the post, I couldn't open another front on your comment. Additionally, I didn't have authorization to do so. I'm left to sit here scratching my head, wondering why I hate America.

Grottman: Do you hate America or only it's government? {:-)

One thing that changes dramatically is that a new president finds him/herself in command of a vast secret military/intelligence apparatus which can be ordered to do anything the president wants done, anywhere in the world, with complete operational and financial secrecy.

One thing that doesn't change in the tiniest slightest itsy-bitsyest little bit is the continual bombing and looting of other countries to benefit US multi-national corporations.

But don't let that stop you vote for Hillary next year.

I'm not going to vote for Clinton, and I don't think many other people would either....