DOJ to Announce Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Be Tried By Military Commission

Attorney General Eric Holder will announce at 2:00 pm today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried by military commission instead of in federal criminal court.

Obama and Holder deserves there lumps over this, but the primary fault lies with Congress and officials in New York. [More...]

In November, 2009, Mr. Holder announced that he had decided to bring Mr. Mohammed to New York City for a trial in a federal civilian court. But those plans quickly collapsed because of resistance by local officials, who balked at the prospect of potentially costly and disruptive security arrangements, and amid a wave of fear that followed the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009.

The Obama administration announced that it was studying other options for a Sept. 11 trial, including other civilian courts in less populated areas. But before it reached any decision, Congress moved to impose steep new restrictions on transferring any detainees from Guantánamo Bay onto United States soil, making such a trial impossible.

Because of Congress, there were only two choices: Keep the men in detention without trial until the law prohibiting money from being spent on transferring the men to the U.S. so they could be tried in civilian court gets repealed, or try them via military commission.

So it's kind of a Hobson's choice. Obama's revamped military commission rules are not much better than the rules under Bush. (Here's the latest protective order and procedures for defense counsel access to their clients as an example.) It will be easier to get the death penalty in a military commission trial. Much will be shielded from public view.

I was really hoping Obama and Holder could think outside the box and come up with a way to defeat the Republican-created ban on federal criminal trials. It's not the trials that were banned, just funding for getting them to the U.S. to stand trial.

Obama has taken a lot of well-deserved criticism for his endorsement of indefinite detention. The 9/11 detainees have been held 9 years without trial. They deserve their day in court. That court should be a federal criminal court, but Congress has made it impossible.

There's plenty of blame and shame due both Congress and the Administration over Guantanamo and the 9/11 detainees. Unfortunately, Obama has just ensured that no permanent marker will take away the stain on America's reputation.

Should he have waited until the 2012 elections were over in hopes a new Democrat majority in Congress would repeal the ban on federal trials? With Democrats like New York's Charles Schumer refusing to budge to avoid holding the trials in New York.

In November, when it became apparent there would be no federal criminal trials of these detainees, I wrote:

What does this say about Obama? That he's ineffective and lacks confidence in his ability to deal with Congress? That he doesn't have the backbone to fight for the policies he believes in and promised when we voted for him? Both?

Doing nothing and trying to sweep the 9/11 defendants under the rug as if they don't exist is not the answer. It's cowardly. President Obama should make the decision he believes in -- try these defendants in federal court. If Congress blocks it, then at least he did his best and stood up for what he believes. Voters will know it's Congress who is to blame. If he just gives up, he loses not only liberal support, but everyone's respect.

Unfortunately, Congress and New York officials left him with two choices: Continued indefinite detention or a military commission trial. Neither is fair.

Here's what I think they should do now: Take the death penalty off the table. There's no way a military jury won't find for death. The penalty phase will be the least fair part of the proceeding. Obama and the military should draw up new charges against the men that don't include seeking death.

We should have closed up shop at Guantanamo a long time ago.

If you can't trust in the integrity of the process, the ensuing verdict has no credibility. The trial process provided for by the Military Commissions Act is so fundamentally flawed, any verdict, but particularly a death verdict, will have no credibility, here or around the world.

If you're no longer familiar with the 9/11 detainees who will now be tried at Guantanamo by military commission, here's a primer post with links.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | 9/11 Detainees Indicted Under Seal in 2009 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Remind me again (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Presidents have to sign laws right? I mean that hasn't changed has it?

    This is all on Obama and it is all about politics.

    I disagree with this post.

    That said, I do not care if KSM is tried in a civilian court. Never did.

    I did not care if Gitmo was closed. Never did.

    But this is all on Obama.

    You think for a second Bush would not have done what he wanted with a military prisoner? And, subject to the Geneva Conventions, but within his PResidential rights? Puhleeeeaze.

    You Are Being Unfair to New York State Officials (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by msaroff on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    They were all saying that they could handle the trials there, and wanted them there, and then the Feds (Obama and Eric "Place" Holder) came up with security measures that would have literally shut down half of Manhattan.

    The Obama administration came up with unacceptable and overbroad security measures, and this created the opposition in New York.

    If we weren't all hopey-changey, one might think that those security measures were intended to create opposition, because Obama, aka the "Worst Constitutional Law Professor Ever", never wanted a trial in civilian court.


    it was the business owners (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:43:53 PM EST
    and condo residents around the courthouse that put up a huge stink. The security measures were an excuse.

    I've written about this many times, if you want the links, you can find them on the site.

    NY has had many terrorism trials. Manhattan was never shut down, and it wouldn't have been with these trials either.


    Also, Democratic Senate (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:51:36 PM EST
    It's amazing to me that even though the Dems control the Senate and the White House, everything is still all the GOP's fault and nothing is the Dems and yet when the Dems controlled all three houses, they could do nothing "progressive".  

    I just can't believe the lies anymore.  We're getting what we're getting because by and large the elite who run this country - both parties - agree on endless war, torture, illegal surveillance, and killing the poor to bail out the rich.  The rest of it is just theatrics to distract us from the reality that there isn't much difference between the two parties.


    Yep, Obama and the Dems are powerless (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:14:36 PM EST
    even when they have the WH, and large majorities in both houses of Congress. Not sure why voters thinks a so called powerless politician or party is a good thing.  

    Actually, when it comes to protecting SS and Medicare the Dems did a much better job when they were in the minority.

    BTW, the acting gets worse every day and the lines (lies) are repetitive, trite and unbelievable.


    wasn't it in the funding bill? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    It wasn't a stand alone law. As for executive authority, that works both ways. As legal analyst Andrew Cohen just wrote in The Atlantic:

    [T]oday's executive branch cave to Congress reminds us how far we have come from the days, immediately following 9/11, when the executive branch did pretty much what it pleased, when it pleased it, in the vital area of terror law.

    Since you don't care whether the 9/11 detainees are tried in civilian court, or whether Guantanamo is closed, which is the point of this post, your comment seems like nothing more than a gratuitous slam.

    Let's keep the focus here on the 9/11 detainees and military commission trials, where it belongs.


    I remember funding bills (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    on Iraq. Bush vetoed them. And then they came back they way he wanted them.

    It's on Obama.


    I would also note (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    that your post sought to excuse Obama on this issue.

    It would have been better if you had not, imo.


    He vetoes (none / 0) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    And then what exactly?  He puts every dem in a district that is strongly against this in a terrible position and ends up battling the majority of his own caucus on an issue he'd lose on.

    So he should hurt himself and all deems just to lose and eventually concede anyway.

    C'mon. That can't be the right answer.


    Huh ? (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    So never do what is right, only do what is popular ?

    Would your advise be the same for President Johnson in regards to civil rights circa 1964 ?  Not a real popular position I would think, yet he had the fortitude to fight for what was right, something Obama will never do.

    Or are we not talking about civil rights here ?  Just some savages in a far away place that don't deserve to be treated like human beings, or even afforded the rights dictated in the Constitution.


    Not a real popular position (none / 0) (#55)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:02:05 PM EST
    really? Um- Civil Rights wasn't a real popular position among Southern Democrats in 1964, but among the rest of the country it had pretty strong support (its why the 1965 CRA passed with massive bi-partisan approval).

    I think it would have been worth (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    a try for the constitutional scholar President to make a visit to those Dem districts that were strongly against it, and give the local populace a  little lesson in what this country stands for. Why is persuasion never even tried?

    Then if the veto is overridden, at least he made a good effort. That does not hurt him in the least.


    If President were to give a major speech (none / 0) (#40)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:13:28 PM EST
    on what American democracy really means, tie it to the trials of Gitmo prisoners and propriety of holding the trials in civilian, Federal Courts, citing precedents (see Jeralyn's comments) for doing so that brought prisoners to justice but did it in a way that did not slam our democratic traditions or our treaties, I think he'd bring the majority to his side.  The Dems are so busy pandering to fear mantras that they forgot that fear can be started and stopped.  

    I don't care (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    My point is a different one - to wit, it was in Obama's power to do this if he wanted to.

    This was like extending the Bush tax cuts, totally in Obama's control.

    As I have stated, I think the fetishization of a KSM civilian trialand the closing of Gitmo is bizarre.

    I think he should be tried by military commission, in Gitmo.

    I think Gitmo should remain open. What difference does itmake if the detainees are held in Gitmo or Super Max. Hell, Gitmo is better for them.

    Rasul rendered the Gitmo issue irrelevant.


    Is This BTD ? (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:57:42 PM EST
    "I think Gitmo should remain open. What difference does itmake if the detainees are held in Gitmo or Super Max. Hell, Gitmo is better for them."

    The difference is Gitmo was opened to circumvent the Constitution and established American law, and it's a shining success.

    I don't care if they try the 'criminals' in Deadwood, TX without any publicity, so long as it's done using American law and all the rights afforded with those laws.


    Nooooo (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    It is not.

    Are you NOT familiar with the Rasul decision?

    The basics of the status of Gitmo vis a vis the Constitution annoys me because I wrote thousands upon thousands of words on the subject.

    Rasul rendered Gitmo a nonissue.


    I Am Not (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    And neither has the rest of the world.

    I will restate, it's original intention is to circumvent American law, and it's still viewed as that by pretty much anyone in the world who doesn't know Rasul, including most Americans.

    Gitmo is not a non-issue, it's front page nearly everywhere today, it's afforded a nice post here, and I am sure that will be discussed on all political news and talk shows tonight.

    For the hell of it, I put Rasul in the Talk Left search engine, and oddly enough, the thousands of words you have written are all 2007 or older, so BTD I apologize from the very bottom of my heart for not reading your every thought on a subject before I commented.

    Quick question, is the governemnt abiding by the decision ?  Or is that question too much of an annoyance for the delicate genius ?  I am being a smart A, but so is flexing your legal muscle on a relatively unknown decision that doesn't in any practical sense, seem to be something we are real concerned with upholding.


    Obama is (none / 0) (#39)
    by Madeline on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 10:53:18 PM EST
    a total coward with every breath he takes. In additional, the WH is talking about how he will align his election: Independents and MONEY. What a FAIL.

    He has his work cut for him with independents (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    according to recent polls.

    And even more troubling for Obama is that he's underwater with independents, 40/51. link

    Even more troubling for Obama IMO is that the number of self identified independents is growing as former long time Democrats leave the party in disagreement with the policies of the "New Democratic Party."

    Didn't the spending bill (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 06:13:17 PM EST
    only block transfers for 9 months?  (TL story here).  I don't see how the President's hand was necessarily forced here, unless I'm missing something.

    Where are the signing (none / 0) (#41)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 11:14:53 PM EST
    statements when you need them?

    Of course, Congress and NY state (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TJBuff on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    didn't campaign on making it happen.  So at least they didn't lie about it.

    How is it different (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by star on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    what Bush would have done? We were all so disgusted with Bush and rightly so for doing the same..sigh. I like the timing of this announcement - right after O jumping into 2012 election mode. Good reminder to sit out this election.  
    Its all about getting to those 'Indipendants'. where else would the dem voters go? Gosh ..if only we could have a real democrat challenging Obama .

    It won't happen. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:54:13 PM EST
    There will be no challenge to Obama.

    If knowledgeable people like Jeralyn are already announcing "Go Obama", the debate and the election are pretty much over.

    Curiously, even amusing in a macabre sense, is that one of the reasons Jeralyn announced her support of Obama is that a democrat would be choosing the attorney general rather than a republican.

    Holder, Obama's choice, is to civil liberties and respect for the rights of defendants as BP is to conservation and respect for the environment.

    But it appears to me that democrats are scared enough to settle for the least worst and say a few hail Marys.

    There will be no challenge.

    As with every presidency I can recall, I just hope that we survive it.


    Lentinel (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:05:29 PM EST
    This democrat isn't scared enough to settle.

    I am hoping/wishing someone worthy jumps on the primary wagon for two reasons.  

    One, Obama has become an ineffectual wind bag who's allegiances to wall street and his perpetual inclination to compromise Democratic principles are just a few things I can not in good conscious, support (aka vote).

    This business about 'you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain' is more bumper sticker garbage that is beyond common sense.  It would mean that given the choice, if Hitler and Stalin were running, I would have to choose one in order to voice my opinion that mass murder is bad.  

    Two, primaries provide a great place for liberals/democrats to hash out our principles.  And in this case, it would be a great opportunity to have someone call out Obama on all his non-sense.  Because in the election, no R is going to call him out on Libya, Wall Street, Gitmo, and a million other positions Obama has taken that the right supports.  Not that they would admit it, but they certainly aren't going to go after a lot of these Gitmo type issues.

    I want a true liberal to make Obama explain his damn self, and be able to do it again and again throughout the primary process.

    And lastly, the voting for the lesser of two evils is a damn good arguement when the range between evils is vast.  When the range is minimal, that arguement loses a lot of validity.

    The only issue that could sway me is if there is a real good chance of a seat opening in the SCOTUS, as mentioned in the post.  But as far as AG's go, please, the only difference between Holder and Gonzo is intellect, which doesn't mean a damn thing when they act roughly in the same way.

    The fact that Holder hasn't even bothered to investigate the previous administration is all that really needs to be said about the importance of having your party in charge of that nomination.  Add in the absurdity of the indifference to the Constitutional rights of enemy combatants and going after 'legal' medical growers and no way in hell does that position factor in my decision to vote.


    Obama is just Bush ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    with better packaging.  He supports the same interests.  And the same interests support him.

    I didn't vote for George W. Bush.  And I'm not gonna vote for George W. Obama.


    Just curious (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 06:22:27 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee, will you vote for him?

    I ask this because if you will, then your opposition is meaningless.


    This is (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    a very good question to ask.

    I suspect that the answer would be yes.
    And Obama is not only counting on it, he is actively taking it for granted.

    It worked for him last time.
    Each time he turned right and abandoned the people who thought that they were his base, they came back. They shed tears of joy at his election. Quite a spectacle.

    So, as much as I agree with the desirability of a primary challenge to Obama for the reasons so well articulated by ScottW714 above, I do not see even the remotest suggestion that it will in fact happen.


    Bimbos? (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 01:09:34 AM EST
    Donald, et al (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:35:08 AM EST
    Donald, a question for you. Why is it that you can not critique your opponents without demeaning them?

    Palin and Bachmann may be totally wrong in their beliefs, but "bimbos?" How would you react to someone using such language against Hillary or Michelle? I mean you seem intelligent, so why the need to denigrate?? If you offer a better way, why not provide it and debate it? That is the only way you will change minds.


    If you oppose Obama on principle yet will vote for him as the lessor of two evils then isn't your position about power, not good? That is especially true if you see Obama as "Bush Lite."

    Just asking.


    I'd suggest the more (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 03:28:59 PM EST
    gender-neutral "barely-ambulatory-without-supervision dingbats"..for Palin and Bachman..

    just off the top of my head..


    Yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 07:12:04 PM EST
    I understand how you view the world.

    Depends Jim (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:03:28 PM EST
    Who the greater evils is.

    It's going to take a Palin or Bachmann type to get me off the couch.  Romney or Pawlenty will not be motivation enough.  I don't believe any of them will be the candidate, just using know examples.

    Keep in mind, we are talking about an election a year and a half away.  When I speak/write, it's my opinions of today, even when I venture into the future, it's still an opinion at one moment in time.

    This is how I feel today, and a thousand things can, and probably will happen before 11.2012.  Obama may find some real courage, he may mix it up with Syria or Iran, he may even broker world peace.  My point is today I would sit it out, but in 18 months I may be the first one in line.


    I know you better than you know yourself (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 07:11:10 PM EST
    You will vote for Obama.

    No matter what.


    Heh! (none / 0) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    Holder, Obama's choice, is to civil liberties and respect for the rights of defendants as BP is to conservation and respect for the environment.

    i've yet to totally grasp the (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    "rationale" for trying them by military commission in the first place. what they did wasn't an act of war, and they aren't soldiers. if it was an act of war, and they are soldiers, then they would presumably be being tried for war crimes (intentionally attacking and killing/injuring civilians), which they aren't.

    they're being tried for terrorist acts, which is inherently a civilian crime. it strikes me that they have been handed, by congress, grounds for appeal as to venue.

    bush screwed it up to begin with, and obama & holder didn't fix it, when they had the opportunity.

    It's all chickensh*t Obama (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    prominently campaigned on his stance position that what the Bush admin. was doing re Gitmo, rendition, indefinite detention, etc. was wrong and how he would uphold the U.S. Constitution and the civil liberties of those we detain. Why announce federal court criminal trials if he waas open to pressure to back down. FISA revise revisited. Disgusting.  

    As I said in an earlier thread, (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    a Republican president and a Republican AG would have skipped the tap-dancing around adherence to the rule of law and transparency of the justice system and gone straight to military commissions at Gitmo; with Obama, you eventually get to the Republican position, but there's a whole lot of being jerked around first.

    And it's getting more disgusting by the day.


    Flawed Analysis (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:54:33 PM EST
    1.  NYC residents didn't fight this, out-of-state republicans did, and one mayor.  If that had happened in my city, I would want them tried as close to ground zero as possible by Houstonians, and locked up somewhere in Texas.  

    2.  "I was really hoping Obama and Holder could think outside the box"
    One has to actually get outside of the box to think outside of it.  I can't think of one 'outside the box' idea he has had that wasn't pre-election rhetoric.  Not sure how you could have had hope on this one, he has pretty much given up and/or never really cared about Gitmo and justice.

    3)  This non-sense about funding is pure BS, start firing Bush holdovers if the cash isn't there, sell the furniture at the 5th circuit court of appeals, or tax churches that openly play politics.  I am kidding, but I don't believe that you believe for a minute that Obama can't find the cash or that he even needs to.

    If this is the standard, let's go all out, and just let the police figure out who's guilty, because that's pretty much what is going to happen at Gitmo.  

    My point is that it is a possibility if you buy into the notion that Congress has the right to defund criminal proceedings/facilities.  They could essentially defund any Presidential decision, virtually making the President nothing more than a powerless figure head.

    Sorry, but what President asks for the money before; one signature and Gitmo is closed, then Congress figures out how to pay for it.  Libya, being the current example, at some point Congress get involved, but Obama didn't ask them for the cash before he sent the military in that direction.  Yet we are to believe he can't instruct the military to release prisoners, pleaze.

    4) The Commander in Chief has authority over all military installations, personnel, and equipment.  Gitmo is a Naval base.  He has complete autonomy in deciding the purpose of any military facility, including Gitmo.

    My point is Obama has only paid this issue lip service, nothing more.  If he wanted to truly shut down Gitmo and hold real American trials, I don't believe for a second he couldn't make it happen, funding or not.   He simply doesn't care, ditto for Holder.  They both have proved where their allegiances lay, and it has nothing to do with justice.

    This post was a long winded justification for injustice, a rarity here, and a bit of a disappointment.

    Two things (none / 0) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:04:07 PM EST
    1. Reappropriating funding which has been specifically blocked is just the sort of thing Reagan should have been impeached for over Iran-Contra.
    2. When did Chuck Schumer become an out-of-state republican?

    it's odd really. (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 08:58:42 PM EST
    wwII presented the world with some of the greatest human made atrocities ever seen, on a grand scale. the allies, in spite of the fact that most of violaters were military, still managed to put together essentially civilian courts to try both german and japanese accused, by the 1,000's.

    the US, by contrast, has fewer than a half dozen clearly civilian defendants to try, in a non-war ravaged country, and can't manage to accomplish the same thing.

    pretty pathetic.

    Yes, it is (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 09:26:32 PM EST
    Isn't it?

    Nuremberg (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    Look at (none / 0) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:05:03 PM EST
    the presiding officials as well as the Prosecutors at Nuremburg before telling me its "essentially civilian."

    Pipe dream (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    Should he have waited until the 2012 elections were over in hopes a new Democrat majority in Congress would repeal the ban on federal trials?

    What new Democrat (sic) majority?

    Pipe Dream (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    By Pipe Dream you mean Democrats getting meaningful legislation passed, right ?  

    We had huge majorities a year ago and couldn't even get most legislation to Senate floor, much less get anything worth while passed w/o making huge concessions.

    And yes, I don't remember the majorities either, but when I read about those times, they really existed.  (Can't tell if the sarcasm is coming through as thick as I am intending)


    pipe dream (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 11:43:55 AM EST
    meaning that Obama will have no Dem majorities come January 2013.

    Meaning It Doesn't Matter (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    Democratic Party majorities in my life so far means that republicans don't get everything they want, but they still get plenty.  Democrats get watered down garbage and told that we should be happy to get anything at all.

    1965 (none / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:06:38 PM EST
    Is the last time Democratic Majorities really pushed through something hard-(the 1993 bubget and the 2009 ACA are big but not Medicare/Medicaid or CRA big).

    Apparently (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    Obama doesn't think there will be one. He maybe right, but it's up to us. We get the Government we elect.

    Obama Does Not Want One (none / 0) (#12)
    by msaroff on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:25:29 PM EST
    If there is a reasonable prospect of the Dems taking back the house and keeping the Senate, then people are less likely to vote Obama as a counterweight to the crazy 'Phants.

    A Republican house suits Obama just fine, because it bolsters his own position, both electorally, and as party leader.


    Such is the legacy (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 09:07:06 PM EST
    of Bill Clinton.

    Can we do an end-around... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    to the congressional c*ckblock by taking up a private collection to save what is left of our good name to fund criminal trials for what is obviously criminal behavior?

    Obama and Holder... (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    thinking "outside the box" ... not intimidated by republicans and bluedogs?

    Not gonna happen.

    Not this time.

    And not next time either.
    The triumph of the perceived least worst.

    heh (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 07:09:42 PM EST