DEM jackass soul.

What an empty suit! He just let them railroad him to the point he has no chance for reelection and he is too dim to realize it.

The longer the Evil Empire is in the quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq, the better it is for the rest of the world. I say, 'Go for it Obama' and add more troops. When the USA finally leaves, it'll be just that much of a bigger defeat. Meanwhile others in the world can pursue a course outside of the sway of Amerikan Imperialism knowing that Amerika is too weak to take them on too.

Why do I get the feeling they have a gun to his head? "You can talk progressive, but don't you dare DO anything."

I want to know how we came to be ruled by a Table. The Table would not let the most liberal option into the healthcare debate, and consequently all the options considered range from profitable for the industry to very profitable for the industry. Here, it is the same with that damn Table. The real change, the liberal option is the only one not allowed.

And back come the Repos with their support the troops by getting them mired down in permanent war mentality. Again, they will control the outcome as surely as they did healthcare. It's like groundhog day.

The premise, which I do not accept, is that we had to invade Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was being sheltered there by the Taliban. Teevee kept showing footage of ninja-style warriors jumping over obstacles as proof of training camps. I never understood what was so special about Afghanistan that it supported the facilities exclusively. Furthermore, did or did not the Taliban offer to turn over Osama? What role did their shutting down the poppy production or not agreeing to a pipeline play in our designating them as the enemy? Is any of this equivalent to a threat against the US that must be meet with an 8-year war that has already cost $230 billion?

Is Congress sure that after Afghanistan and Pakistan that we won't have a similar mandate for Georgia and Azerbaijan? Iran? Columbia? Occasionally we hear about the drug lords morphing into war lords in Mexico. Then there is Africa, basically the whole continent... any end to these Must-Do Wars?

I feel nauseous after seeing Bohnert and McCain and Mitch McConnell out with the Repo's same old true and tried. Support the troops by supporting any and all wars no matter what. Obama will go along - I think he has misgivings, but teevee has yanked his chain pretty hard. One account I read yesterday said that the healthcare "debate" was nothing compared to what he would see if he got cold feet on the permanent war. I'm surprised Repos aren't out there claiming it would cost jobs to not invade Central Asia.

And so it goes. Every policy a disaster for us and none of them to be changed because they benefit those with the power, whether in finance, war or in general the crumbling structure of our society.

Oh, and given that photo, why doesn't he just walk across the water and heal Afghanistan?

Pitch Fork -

America came to be ruled by a Table around 1980, early in what the mainstream media nostalgically refers to as the golden era of Ronald Reagan.

Before the advent of government by Table, political decisionmaking in Washington was a messy, but largely public brokerage process between the House, the Senate, the White House, and the federal bureaucratic institutions, with the courts occasionally making rulings on how the game should be played. Sure, there was plenty of back room bartering, but decisions got made and policy formulated roughly in the manner that the constitutional separation of powers framework envisioned.

With the election of a movie actor to play the role of President and Commander-in-Chief however, the Table became necessary because that was where the script writers would arrange themselves and do their drafting and editing work. Under the new system, what issues got "on the Table" came to depend entirely upon who had a chair at the Table to begin with. By the same token, certain ideas (a national health care system, progressive tax rates based upon wealth, meaningful antitrust restraints upon business corporations, aversion to the use of military force, etc.) were automatically "off the Table", for reasons of uniformly shared ideological principle.

As the Table system of government evolved, it came to pass that lip service could be paid to everything with a wink and a nod, while the devil always lurked in the final draft, fine print detail. The Democrats, too, seized upon the Table model of executive branch government for its obvious utility in diffusing accountability when policy decisions were exposed as bad, and giving the Dear Leader all credit when things went well.

Remember how during the Bush/Cheney administration, when an issue like bombing Iran would surface, high White House officials (usually unnamed) would assure us "the military option remains on the table", perhaps but not necessarily as a last resort? Now, with team Obama, such things as bargaining drug prices with big pharma on behalf of consumers, prosecuting major war criminals, or withdrawing troops from Af/Pak are never "on the table" for serious consideration, much as Nancy Pelosi famously decreed that impeaching Bush or Cheney was "off the table" should the Dems regain control of the House of Representatives.

Under Roberts Rules of Order, elected representatives move to table things in order to delay taking action, and remove proposals from the table in order to vote up or down on the merits. The Table of the DC beltway crowd uses similar labeling, but to reverse effect: that which is On the Table is ripe for possible enactment, and that which is Off the Table no serious political player will even think about.

Thus, he who sets the table also defines the limits of the menu, hoping nobody on the outside looking in will even notice the sleight of hand.

Bill from Saginaw