<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Our Last, Best Hope?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/</link>
	<description>Making the World Safe for Liberalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:46:11 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67796</link>
		<dc:creator>Donna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:52:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67796</guid>
		<description>The past two days, I have been driving for hours and listening to NPR whenever I can get one of their stations.  [alas...eastern Colorado and western Kansas stations are predominantly country music or religious stations].   Anyway, I heard [I think it was late last night-Monday-or early this am] some news about Congress possibly withholding funds for an Iraq escalation, and as part of that news clip,  there was a recording of Obama making a statement about setting his staff to the task of looking into the ways to do so in a way that is legal and still protective/supportive of soldiers already in the war zone.   Every subsequent new clip on the same subject toned down the whole message of withholding funding and particularly dropped any repeat of that Obama quote, which change perked my curiosity about a media blanket being thrown over the real situation in the Capitol.    Anyone else hear this or read about it in the past day or so?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The past two days, I have been driving for hours and listening to NPR whenever I can get one of their stations.  [alas...eastern Colorado and western Kansas stations are predominantly country music or religious stations].   Anyway, I heard [I think it was late last night-Monday-or early this am] some news about Congress possibly withholding funds for an Iraq escalation, and as part of that news clip,  there was a recording of Obama making a statement about setting his staff to the task of looking into the ways to do so in a way that is legal and still protective/supportive of soldiers already in the war zone.   Every subsequent new clip on the same subject toned down the whole message of withholding funding and particularly dropped any repeat of that Obama quote, which change perked my curiosity about a media blanket being thrown over the real situation in the Capitol.    Anyone else hear this or read about it in the past day or so?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bonnie</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67540</link>
		<dc:creator>Bonnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67540</guid>
		<description>Check out this cool picture:

http://beachimpeach.com/

I think &quot;k&quot; has some good points about the AUMF.  Also, I read somewhere that Congress can withdraw the AUMF if they wanted to; but, I don&#039;t remember where I read it.  I, on most days, don&#039;t remember what I had for lunch--let alone where I read something on the internet.  Although, I do try to save links when they are very good, I often don&#039;t remember where I saved them.  Ah, the joys of getting older.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check out this cool picture:</p>
<p><a href="http://beachimpeach.com/" rel="nofollow">http://beachimpeach.com/</a></p>
<p>I think &#8220;k&#8221; has some good points about the AUMF.  Also, I read somewhere that Congress can withdraw the AUMF if they wanted to; but, I don&#8217;t remember where I read it.  I, on most days, don&#8217;t remember what I had for lunch&#8211;let alone where I read something on the internet.  Although, I do try to save links when they are very good, I often don&#8217;t remember where I saved them.  Ah, the joys of getting older.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: erinyes</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67528</link>
		<dc:creator>erinyes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67528</guid>
		<description>All great points Maha, however a &quot;dynamic&quot; event happened today when U.S. forces employed an AC-130 gunship violating Somali airspace to attack AlQaida &quot;suspects&quot; following an attack on Somalia by a proxy force comprised of Ethopian military personell and &quot;others&quot;.How can two countries that can barley feed themselves afford such weapons? Let&#039;s hope the Dems investigate THAT also!
 Bush will use the GWOT and reports of an impending Israeli or joint Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran to distract us from the crap &quot;on the ground&quot; in Iraq. The old Al Qaida jack-in-the box syndrome, can Usama Bin Laden be lurking just around the corner? It will be &quot;the terrists&quot; taking attention from Iraq.
Be prepared to see more GWOT activity in Africa from Somalia to Mauritiana over the next several months.(the Chinese are pursuing &quot;Islamic Extremists&quot; near China&#039;s Afghan border as I type this also).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All great points Maha, however a &#8220;dynamic&#8221; event happened today when U.S. forces employed an AC-130 gunship violating Somali airspace to attack AlQaida &#8220;suspects&#8221; following an attack on Somalia by a proxy force comprised of Ethopian military personell and &#8220;others&#8221;.How can two countries that can barley feed themselves afford such weapons? Let&#8217;s hope the Dems investigate THAT also!<br />
 Bush will use the GWOT and reports of an impending Israeli or joint Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran to distract us from the crap &#8220;on the ground&#8221; in Iraq. The old Al Qaida jack-in-the box syndrome, can Usama Bin Laden be lurking just around the corner? It will be &#8220;the terrists&#8221; taking attention from Iraq.<br />
Be prepared to see more GWOT activity in Africa from Somalia to Mauritiana over the next several months.(the Chinese are pursuing &#8220;Islamic Extremists&#8221; near China&#8217;s Afghan border as I type this also).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug Hughes</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67521</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug Hughes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67521</guid>
		<description>Helluva good post, Barbara. You addressed a number of questions I have asked about the authority of Congress to rescind authorization for the war since none of the reasons for the war turned out to be valid.

I saw Biden palm that card on &quot;Meet the Press&quot; when Biden declared that Congreess can&#039;t do much. IMO, he wants his hearings (which he will chair) to be center ring of the Congressional circus and he does not want to be upstaged.

The idea of a constitutional confrontation over the war has to be worked backwards. A few legal scholars are qualified, based on case law, to predict what Congressional action(s) stand the best chance of being upheld by the Supreme court. Doing this in a coordinated and timely manner means someone with clout has to run interference. The Dems are united against escalation, but disorganized how to respond. Perhaps the gentleman you lunched with a few months ago, if he&#039;s reading?

Becuase the ideas expressed are that important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Helluva good post, Barbara. You addressed a number of questions I have asked about the authority of Congress to rescind authorization for the war since none of the reasons for the war turned out to be valid.</p>
<p>I saw Biden palm that card on &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; when Biden declared that Congreess can&#8217;t do much. IMO, he wants his hearings (which he will chair) to be center ring of the Congressional circus and he does not want to be upstaged.</p>
<p>The idea of a constitutional confrontation over the war has to be worked backwards. A few legal scholars are qualified, based on case law, to predict what Congressional action(s) stand the best chance of being upheld by the Supreme court. Doing this in a coordinated and timely manner means someone with clout has to run interference. The Dems are united against escalation, but disorganized how to respond. Perhaps the gentleman you lunched with a few months ago, if he&#8217;s reading?</p>
<p>Becuase the ideas expressed are that important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: k</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67514</link>
		<dc:creator>k</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67514</guid>
		<description>Somewhere in my saved files I have the AUMF for Iraq and I believe it has to be reviewed every 90 days, there were reporting requirements that obviously have not been met.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Somewhere in my saved files I have the AUMF for Iraq and I believe it has to be reviewed every 90 days, there were reporting requirements that obviously have not been met.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bruce</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67507</link>
		<dc:creator>bruce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67507</guid>
		<description>The Republicans who are sitting on the fence as of yet will probably stay there for a few days after the Prez speaks, then they will all fold like a $6 pup tent.

And no one ever asks what exactly victory will look like.  How will we know when we&#039;ve won? Seems to me real winning is about making the enemy admit defeat.  Does anyone think that even if every other lie and misunderstanding by this Administration were true that a militarily exhausted Al Qaeda is going to cry &quot;uncle&quot; and call off worldwide jihad?  No, in fact, the worse they are defeated (i.e., humiliated) in Iraq, the greater will be their call for worldwide revenge, and probably the more successful they will be in recruiting for the &quot;mother of all revenge attacks.&quot;

Support for this escalation will reach 40% within 2 weeks after they unveil it, and the press will be marvelling at the Prez&#039;s genius and leadership...until it fails.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Republicans who are sitting on the fence as of yet will probably stay there for a few days after the Prez speaks, then they will all fold like a $6 pup tent.</p>
<p>And no one ever asks what exactly victory will look like.  How will we know when we&#8217;ve won? Seems to me real winning is about making the enemy admit defeat.  Does anyone think that even if every other lie and misunderstanding by this Administration were true that a militarily exhausted Al Qaeda is going to cry &#8220;uncle&#8221; and call off worldwide jihad?  No, in fact, the worse they are defeated (i.e., humiliated) in Iraq, the greater will be their call for worldwide revenge, and probably the more successful they will be in recruiting for the &#8220;mother of all revenge attacks.&#8221;</p>
<p>Support for this escalation will reach 40% within 2 weeks after they unveil it, and the press will be marvelling at the Prez&#8217;s genius and leadership&#8230;until it fails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67505</link>
		<dc:creator>maha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67505</guid>
		<description>sachem515: Another good argument for impeachment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sachem515: Another good argument for impeachment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sachem515</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67504</link>
		<dc:creator>sachem515</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:26:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67504</guid>
		<description>STFU is covered in the Constitution under Article I, Section 2 (House) and Section 3 (Senate); keyword search Impeachment.

Also note that STFU is punctuated nicely in Article II Section 2 where the powers to pardon are denied once impeachment has occurred for the offences listed in Article II, Section 4.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>STFU is covered in the Constitution under Article I, Section 2 (House) and Section 3 (Senate); keyword search Impeachment.</p>
<p>Also note that STFU is punctuated nicely in Article II Section 2 where the powers to pardon are denied once impeachment has occurred for the offences listed in Article II, Section 4.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67503</link>
		<dc:creator>maha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67503</guid>
		<description>Sachem515: Thanks for the correction to the link. I fixed it.

Your comments are all posted, as far as I know. Sometimes WordPress is a little creaky.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sachem515: Thanks for the correction to the link. I fixed it.</p>
<p>Your comments are all posted, as far as I know. Sometimes WordPress is a little creaky.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: merciless</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/08/our-last-best-hope/comment-page-1/#comment-67501</link>
		<dc:creator>merciless</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mahablog.com/?p=1343#comment-67501</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m breathlessly awaiting the reaction of Congress.  My own representative, Heather Wilson (R: Loathsome) said at the National Press Club that a surge was a bad idea, that the President had to stop using &quot;mushy rhetoric&quot; (her words) when describing the situation in Iraq, and that her recent tour of Iraq made her believe that things were getting worse, not better.

I darn near slopped coffee all over myself.  If her opponent in the recent elections had said anything in the area code of those statements, Wilson would have called her a terrorist-loving, commie-pinko muslim appeaser.

The talking heads have not yet wrapped around their heads that there is NO support for this action.  Not in Congress, not in the Pentagon, not on the streets.

A tiny hope burns for me that this Congress will tell the President, with all due respect, to STFU.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m breathlessly awaiting the reaction of Congress.  My own representative, Heather Wilson (R: Loathsome) said at the National Press Club that a surge was a bad idea, that the President had to stop using &#8220;mushy rhetoric&#8221; (her words) when describing the situation in Iraq, and that her recent tour of Iraq made her believe that things were getting worse, not better.</p>
<p>I darn near slopped coffee all over myself.  If her opponent in the recent elections had said anything in the area code of those statements, Wilson would have called her a terrorist-loving, commie-pinko muslim appeaser.</p>
<p>The talking heads have not yet wrapped around their heads that there is NO support for this action.  Not in Congress, not in the Pentagon, not on the streets.</p>
<p>A tiny hope burns for me that this Congress will tell the President, with all due respect, to STFU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
