"Did Vice President Biden suggest tacit approval of a hypothetical Israeli attack on Iran? It's become 'something of a Rorschach test'."

It's a moot point.

The Israelis cannot do any damage to the Iranian nuclear processing program. They do not possess the knowledge of it's various locations, and even if they did, they do not possess the armaments to reach them.

Iran is not Iraq.

....and remember when you see that $1.4 million per DAY being spent by private insurers to lobby AGAINST single payer....

Remember that every one of those dollars.....that nearly $500 million per year....

is coming from the PROFITS they are making from your premiums coupled with recission programs which dump you if at all possible when you try and make a serious claim.

That's YOUR money, being used to convince you and Congress to work against YOUR best interests.

* Iran's Mir Hossein Mousavi made his first public appearance in a while today.

Good to know he's still alive and still free. Probably won't last.

The Israelis cannot do any damage to the Iranian nuclear processing program. They do not possess the knowledge of it's various locations [...] -- Joe Friday, @17:43,

It doesn't matter whether Israel has the capabilities for targeted strikes or not. Big Mouth Joe has no business saying anything that *might* be interpreted as "we don't, exactly encourage it, but we'll look the other way if you do". Because, I wouldn't put it past them to carpet bomb an area and then say "oops, we had intel that it was a silo and you said it was OK with you." Just like they said that Bush gave them an OK to keep expanding the West Bank settlements, while Hillary says that, based on the documents, there was never such an agreement.

It's amusing to see Marion Barry in trouble again, but it's especially nice to see it so soon after he railed against gay marriage in DC.

Two things continue to bother me about Palin's line that lame duck Gov.s "milk it" & fly around on the taxpayer's dime.

First, since she's the 'Maverick' who 'swims against the current', who's not 'business as usual', why wouldn't she stay on & do the opposite? Serve her term, buckle down on one or two issues (i.e. AK's child welfare state, which is deplorable), do some good with her time in office? Is Palin saying that if she stayed on she couldn't resist the lure of free trips & "milking it"? That if she served out her term she'd behave just like those other pols? (names please). Not very Maverick-y.

Secondly, wrt to "milking it" & free trips, she's been doing exactly that for the last six months. So Palin is condemning a strawman/men for behaving exactly as she has for the last half-year. Stunning hypocrisy.

George Bush made lying honourable & now Sarah Palin makes quitting valourous. Thanks for values I can teach my kids Republicans! At least they won't be getting/giving blow jobs or anything.

Surely you mean former DC mayor Marion Barry and not Arkansas congressman Marion Berry?

As is too often the case, Boehner has no idea what he's talking about.

I get that we can never be certain what's in another person's mind, but I'm pretty confident in this case that he's just lying.

"North Korea may not have food for its people, but it does have seven missiles it cam shoot into the Sea of Japan on the 4th of July"

Gotta love that cam-do attitude.

You know Sarah didn't have to resign to protect Alaska from the jet setting excesses of a lame duck governor. All she had to do was pay her own way.

How does the Heritage Foundation get to keep their tax exempt status? It doesn't take a Nobel Prize to realize that they are nothing more than a commercial propaganda shop.

Zeyala's plane may have been turned away, but his interests are advanced. The coup regime is losing graces quickly with the west. Follow this story here: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield

Al Giordano is in front of all of this news and keeps the pulse of American liberty as well as anyone I've seen.

Dan
Boston, MA

So, Marion "the bitch set me up" Barry has been "set up" again? How many lives does that guy get? What an embarrassment.

In response to Krugman's take-down of the Heritage Foundation, I wanted to thank him for the simple 2-step protocol for evaluating the value of their statements of propaganda.

I came across some Heritage speaker on TV last night, though he was taped several months ago, talking about his book, Green Hell, about how the Green movement is fascistic, etc., and the dude certainly bore out Krugman's warnings.

Conservative Stink Tanks should be silenced, or at least not given the national stage needed to propagandize the American public.

"Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the JCS...advised the president to 'move in a measured way' to change DADT".
Most likely, the Admiral wants DADT handled by legislation rather than via an Executive Order halting separations for homosexuality. The part that "probably isn't good" is that it will take longer to accomplish that way.
Side note: many people refer to President Truman's desegregation of the armed forces in 1947 as the way to go. Unfortunately, 2009 is NOT the same as 1947 and there are a lot more factors involved now.
Several states now recognize same-sex marriages; will the armed forces be required to place same-sex married couples in base housing? If not, why not? In same-sex couples, will the "spouse" be provided with the same benefits as opposite-sex spouses? Those are just two questions off the top of my head; there are a host of others that legislation, and only legislation, will have to tackle and, hopefully, solve.

HEY! Let's get those family values people along side and put a stop to turning the Obama children into media meat. THEY are not celebrities.

If they say something nice this time, they set the children up for not so favorable reports the next time. Children don't need this bullying.

Put a stop to reporting on the children NOW.

North Korea may not have food for its people, but it does have seven missiles it cam shoot into the Sea of Japan on the 4th of July.

And smug 'mericans don't have enough health coverage for their people, but are able to simultaneously fight two wars in Asia.

Good times....

"Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN yesterday that he's advised the president to move "in a measured way" in changing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It's not at all clear what "measured" means in that context, but it's probably not good."

In this context, it usually means something along the lines of, "Don't rock the boat too much." If he means something else, I will be pleasantly surprised. I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on that, though, considering his history. Just think of all the double-talk he gave us on the treaty to leave Iraq that Bush&Co. negotiated ("Well, conditions can change, we might have to stay anyway, etc.").

And, of course, there's the fact that the majority of America thinks DADT should be repealed, so there's no reason to worry about "rocking the boat". In fact, at this point, rocking the boat means *not* repealing it.

+++++

"Tragically, life for gay Iraqis in their own country has gotten worse since the fall of Saddam."

Yet another tragedy to add to the "The world is *NOT* better off without Saddam" file. I really **REALLY** hope that someone eventually has the wherewithal to drag the whole Bush regime into a war crimes trial.

+++++

"I don't care if she's the president's daughter; major news networks should not do reports on Malia Obama's clothes."

What the hell are major news networks doing reporting on *anyone's* clothes?

That's a rhetorical question, so don't bother answering.

Once more into the breach:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.
El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
* Modificado por Decreto 299/1998.
* Modificado por Decreto 374/2002 y ratificado por Decreto 153/2003.

According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

I don't get Obama's initial de facto support for the fascists Ahmadi/Khameini violently and at times fatally suppressing peaceful public protests, and Obama's agreement with the fascist Chavez' Bolivarian Alliance condemning the preservation of the Honduran constitution by its legislature, Supreme Court and military.

Definitely qualifies as Change though.

"No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President."

Hey, not a problem! The Chief Attorney for the Honduran Army admitted that the removal of Zelaya from office by the military was illegal:

''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.''

Here's what's funny: the UN has declared it illegal. The U.S. has declared it illegal. The OAS has declared it illegal. And now even the guys who did it said it was illegal.

It boggles the mind.

There is no question this was an illegal coup. An army leader who had been dismissed from his post by Zelaya came back and led his abduction. A resignation letter was forged in his name and presented to the Assembly as if he'd written it. The current illegitimate regime is arresting people without cause and shuttering media. And the military is openly saying they removed Zelaya because, and I quote, he was a "normal guy" who had become a "leftist."

I do not wish to hear or read another word about Michael Jackson. The same goes for Sarah Palin.

Misattributed, or mis-signed my comment above as Stye, so wanted to correct its origin.

* I don't care if she's the president's daughter; major news networks should not do reports on Malia Obama's clothes. -- Steve Benen

Why not, if the "news" helps the retailer keep its head above the water and a few employees still employed rather than laid off ? Unless the Obamas are getting those clothes on a national or party, credit card (like Chick Quitter) -- which I haven't heard -- there's nothing wrong with their shopping, or the Style section journalists noticing, or the store bragging about it. Used to be, designers *paid* celebrities to wear/advertise their stuff.

Besides, I approve of their choices :) Used to shop at J Crews and the Gap myself, when I was still young and pretty and had some discretionary cash. Its not Tiffany's, for goodness sake.

all right, trex.

The things Zelaya had been doing up until the time of his arrest were in explicit violation of the Honduran constitution, calling for his immediate expulsion from the government, which is the reason the other branches of government took action against him.

'According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."'

(thanks MRM)

I've actually been a bit hazy on the notion of spiriting Zelaya out of the country, legally speaking, Honduran-wise.

Is this the legal point on which the "Bolivars", or anyone else make their objection?

THIS is why Chavez (the de-gutter of the Venezualan constitution), and you, want Zelaya re-instated?

THIS is why Chavez (the de-gutter of the Venezualan constitution), and you, want Zelaya re-instated?

Zelaya needs to be reinstated because calling for a referendum allowing Honduran citizens to vote on whether or not to hold a new constitutional convention is not illegal; it is not a measure that "guts" the current constitution of anything, and the referendum may very well have been voted down.

The fear on the part of Zelaya's political opponents was that it would pass -- you know, democratically -- and that he would end up serving more terms and pushing a socialist agenda. The ruling by the Supreme Court wasn't that the referendum was illegal -- any idiot can see that the Constitution is going to change again and be amended, as it has so many times -- but that it was illegal because it was an election year. They didn't fear a change to the Constitution, they feared Zelaya having enormous support among the poor and being elected over and over again, which is a threat to the plutocracy there.

The army leaders showed their hand when they said they would simply not follow the orders of a leftist president. They don't give a shit about the Constitution, they care about their ideology.

The plutocracy allowed Zelaya to be elected because he had campaigned as a center right candidate. When he suggested more government money go to the poor through aid programs, they wanted him out. Hmmm, what political party does that remind you of in this country?

Per the Honduran Constitution, only the Legislature has the power to call for a referendum.

If the President makes any attempt at such, per the Constitution, he is gone, at that moment.

This was added because of all the constitutional meddling by the military in the 70's and 80's.

Evoked again by Venezuela's Chavez in the "new" century.

This is the most authoritative account I've found to date:

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13952942

Per the Honduran Constitution, only the Legislature has the power to call for a referendum.

By his own admission Zelaya was asking for a non-binding poll on whether the citizens of Honduras were interested in a constitutional convention. It changed nothing, created no obligations, and had no force of law. And the citizens could have voted no. He himself was not agitating to be re-elected and did not stand to benefit. Either way the end result changed nothing -- except possibly pressuring legislators to represent the will of their constituents.

Coup.

The Legislature didn't think his plans were illegal. They went so far as to pass a law ex post facto to stop Zelaya's plans for his poll which were already underway by simply putting a time restriction on it that would foil it.

If the President makes any attempt at such, per the Constitution, he is gone, at that moment.

Ah, no. A number of the previous presidents under this Constitution have tried to find ways around the terms limits and haven't been deposed. And it's immaterial, as Zelaya didn't try and change the Constitution. He was simply asking for a sense of the citenzry on whether or not they felt a Constitutional convention was called for.

Oh: and please do keep bashing Chavez as if it were either material or helping your case. It may interest you to know that he is a democratically elected leader.

I'll be pleased to see any independent documentation you can provide of your claims.

"Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions"

Zelaya was not proposing a reform? What, a national picnic?

"Objective" take on the contretemps:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4593

www.actblue.com

This is the group that's raising funds to challenge and/or unseat NY (R) P. King. I will be donating to this online PAC

****They are also raising funds for Health Care for Americans, and for Gavin Newsome.

Matt,

You might want to check a dictionary for the definition of 'non-binding'.

Zelaya's crime was that he did not ask How High? when the wealthy class said jump.

Roundtable on Russia during tonight's Charlie Rose Show:

* Thomas Pickering - Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia

* Stephen Cohen - Professor of Russian Studies at New York University

* Claire Shipman - ABC News

* Chrystia Freeland - Financial TImes

Since when is Claire Shipman a foreign policy expert, let alone an expert on Russia ?

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

The phrase "proposes its reform" does not seem to be focused only on "binding" referenda. Nor does the language focus on an official proposing his own continuation in office. Any official who wants to reform the process must first resign from office. The Honduran Constitution seems to lack an "or else" clause, but section 239 seems to suggest that promoting an extension of tenure of office is a de facto resignation. It's not the only constitution to have some ambiguity about what to do when the chief executive violates its plain meaning. But Zelaya broke the law, so it's a shame that the US supports his reinstatement.

"You might want to check a dictionary for the definition of 'non-binding'."

An exceedingly sleazy way to elude and subvert a constitution, Joe.

Hugo's all over this.

Guess it's no longer "Just the facts, Ma'am", eh Joe? Sure hope Matthew is right on this.

Obama appears to like your "facts", so that should be sufficient.

Until November, 2010.

But you'll have stamped out additional voices here as well by then, won't you have?

Thanks, for mentioning both Marion Barry and Marion Berry - Makes my mouth water for the coming, although always far too short, season for the wonderful Marionberries of Oregon. Just missed being named the State Berry. Must have the ghost of the RepuG Walter Knott stopping it because of his affection for his dear Boysenberries.

Non-binding or not, their Supreme Court already ruled that his action activated that clause of the constitution.

Yum, marionberries. Although right now I'm pining for the huckleberries of Montana.

But you'll have stamped out additional voices here as well by then, won't you have?

Yes, people calmly debating your points are "stamping your voice out." Lordy, but the drama-queen right loves to stroke and caress its own beloved sense of constant victimization.

Yeah, and there are a couple of grizzlies, with mouths a'waterin' saying "Ah, the Shortcake, er Shortstop arrives". For some of the best hucks, try the area at the base of Mt Adams in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. Plenty of skeeters, but, no grizzlies.

I don't worry too much about the grizzlies -- I carry bear spray in the backcountry in grizzlyland but have never had to use it because singing and clapping on blind spots on the trail has always done the trick. Still, Gifford Pinchot is on our list, so thanks.

Yes, people calmly debating your points are "stamping your voice out." Lordy, but the drama-queen right loves to stroke and caress its own beloved sense of constant victimization.

On top of that, Matthew Marler has a record of bad-faith debate and dishonesty that goes back years -- and probably to the old Calpundit site as well -- and always in service of right wing talking points. Marler's word is, quite simply, no good -- a fact he tacitly acknowledges with his occasional pretense as an honest commentator, beofre posting bullshit like liberals support work release programs because they're soft on criminals instead of, say, because they reduce recidivism. While the concession implicit in his dishonesty is gratifying, his bad faith is a persistent insult to this forum and his hosts.

Marler's a dishonest jackass with absolutely no interest in good faith debate. You follow him at peril to your own credibility.

By 125-3, the Honduran legislature voted to remove Zelaya from power, including all but 3 members of his own party. Michiletti, formerly president of the legislature and next in line to the Presidency, and now President, is also a member of Zelaya's party.

So exactly what is unconstitutional about how Honduras did all this?

Biden: He said Israel is a sovereign nation, and we can't literally stop them (well we could, but the sentiment ...) What the hell was he supposed to say? "Israel is a US vassal state, and we'll stop them if they try" and risk major outrage from the same crowd that's bitching about his saying we wouldn't stop them?

Sarah Palin hit by new ethics charges, and this is from a conservative oil worker, Zane Henning!:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/palin-hit-with-more-ethic_b_226667.html .

All right, I admit the 'stamping out debate here' is possibly a bit premature, but I'm upset to see that Obama has put America on the same side as that of fascist thugs like Hugo Chavez in regard to Honduras. And if not on the same side as Ahmadinejad and Khameini, for nearly 2 weeks Obama for all intents and purposes voted present while innocent blood ran in the streets of Iranian cities.

Matt, "fascist thugs"? That's who overthrew the duly elected Honduran President, what are you saying? As for Iran: Obama knew full well that saying too much about taking sides would hurt the opposition, and when the repression itself became an issue he did speak out. I guess you like flashy, anti-intellectual gut-instinct types like Sarah the Quitta from Wassila?

BTW, even if Zelaya did something wrong, isn't there a due process about how to press him out? I doubt that was followed, and it couldn't be just "whatever" (like, military coup)! - as noted above!

Fascist thugs, like Zelaya's sugar daddy Chavez, rewrite the constitution before they follow it. Zelaya appears to have been following the same script.

Again, what was unconstitutional in Honduras' handling of the matter?

Matthew,

"The phrase 'proposes its reform' does not seem to be focused only on 'binding' referenda."

And the U.S. Constitution doesn't mention anything about commercial jet airliners.

You're grasping at non-existent straws.

Matt,

"An exceedingly sleazy way to elude and subvert a constitution, Joe."

And what does a non-binding referendum have to do with the Honduran constitution ?

"Non-binding or not, their Supreme Court already ruled that his action activated that clause of the constitution ... By 125-3, the Honduran legislature voted to remove Zelaya from power, including all but 3 members of his own party."

Because, as trex posted upthread:

"A resignation letter was forged in his name and presented to the Assembly as if he'd written it."

"Again, what was unconstitutional in Honduras' handling of the matter?"

You mean, BESIDES it being an illegal military coup of a democratically elected president ?

"Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions..."

According to the Honduran Constitution, Zelaya was no longer President, automatically ejected by his own action. Binding or not, his referendum was a reform proposal.

How can it be considered a coup, if Zelaya was in fact no longer President?

Their constitution was designed specifically to prohibit the kind of subversion Chavez has committed in Venezuela, and which happened perenially in Honduras in the 70s and 80s.

Joe: Disregard that constitution. Disregard it.

Joe is one thing. What I don't get is why Obama and Hillary are disregarding the Honduran Constitution.

Now Zelaya is apparently calling on comrades like Chavez to "intervene", which could mean anything up to and including an invasion (it looks as though Chavez is physically/logistically incapable of this.) Another Bolivarian, neighboring Nicaragua could prove to be a problem. If Zelaya tries to cross that border into Honduras, accompanied by Nicaraguan troops, it could turn into a real mess.

Panama is Honduras' only real friend in the world, at this point.

How you going to vote on this one, Barry?