againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.
againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.
againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.
againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.
againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.
againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.
againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.
againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.

againstpower:

Fantastic satire from the Onion. George W. Bush debuts new paintings of dogs, friends, and ghost of Iraqi child that follows him everywhere.

theatlantic:

The Swift Justice of the al-Qaida Messenger Trial

With jury deliberations now underway, Suleiman Abu Ghaith’s case is proving to be a textbook example of why civilian courtrooms work better than military commissions.

Read more. [Image: United States Attorney, SDNY]

“War-mongering is self-justifying. If you bungle a war in Iraq, it does not mean you need to sit back and reflect on the bungling. It means you should make more war, lest Iraq become a base for your enemies. If Vladimir Putin violates Ukrainian sovereignty, it is evidence for a more muscular approach. If he doesn’t, than it is evidence that he fears American power. If there are no terrorist attacks on American soil, than drones must be right and our security state must be effective. If there are attacks, then our security state must increase its surveillance, and more bombs should be dropped. Violence begets violence. Peace begets violence. The circle continues.”
fuckyeahhistorycrushes:

peashooter85:



OH MY GOd

I like this way too much.  fuckyeahhistorycrushes:

peashooter85:



OH MY GOd

I like this way too much. 

hipsterlibertarian:

"Ultimately what we’ve learned is the difference between administrations is not necessarily what they do, but what they say to get to do it." — Jon Stewart, on Barack Obama and George W. Bush, with their respective drone and torture programs

Watch Part 2 here.

The Bombing of Barcelona was a series of Nationalist airstrikes which took place from 16 to 18 March 1938, during the Spanish Civil War. Up to 1,300 people were killed and at least 2,000 wounded.
The repeated wave of attacks carried out by the Italians would render irrelevant the air-raid alarm system since it would no longer be clear if the sirens were announcing the beginning or the end of an attack.Furthermore, they used delayed-fuse bombs designed to pass through the roof and then explode inside the building and a new type of bomb which explode with a strong lateral force, so as to destroy things and persons within a few inches of the ground. The bombings affected all the city and the bombers didn’t attempt to destroy military targets.
"No theory of war can justify such conduct… . I feel that I am speaking for the whole American people!" - Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State. The Bombing of Barcelona was a series of Nationalist airstrikes which took place from 16 to 18 March 1938, during the Spanish Civil War. Up to 1,300 people were killed and at least 2,000 wounded.
The repeated wave of attacks carried out by the Italians would render irrelevant the air-raid alarm system since it would no longer be clear if the sirens were announcing the beginning or the end of an attack.Furthermore, they used delayed-fuse bombs designed to pass through the roof and then explode inside the building and a new type of bomb which explode with a strong lateral force, so as to destroy things and persons within a few inches of the ground. The bombings affected all the city and the bombers didn’t attempt to destroy military targets.
"No theory of war can justify such conduct… . I feel that I am speaking for the whole American people!" - Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State. The Bombing of Barcelona was a series of Nationalist airstrikes which took place from 16 to 18 March 1938, during the Spanish Civil War. Up to 1,300 people were killed and at least 2,000 wounded.
The repeated wave of attacks carried out by the Italians would render irrelevant the air-raid alarm system since it would no longer be clear if the sirens were announcing the beginning or the end of an attack.Furthermore, they used delayed-fuse bombs designed to pass through the roof and then explode inside the building and a new type of bomb which explode with a strong lateral force, so as to destroy things and persons within a few inches of the ground. The bombings affected all the city and the bombers didn’t attempt to destroy military targets.
"No theory of war can justify such conduct… . I feel that I am speaking for the whole American people!" - Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State.

The Bombing of Barcelona was a series of Nationalist airstrikes which took place from 16 to 18 March 1938, during the Spanish Civil War. Up to 1,300 people were killed and at least 2,000 wounded.

The repeated wave of attacks carried out by the Italians would render irrelevant the air-raid alarm system since it would no longer be clear if the sirens were announcing the beginning or the end of an attack.Furthermore, they used delayed-fuse bombs designed to pass through the roof and then explode inside the building and a new type of bomb which explode with a strong lateral force, so as to destroy things and persons within a few inches of the ground. The bombings affected all the city and the bombers didn’t attempt to destroy military targets.

"No theory of war can justify such conduct… . I feel that I am speaking for the whole American people!" - Cordell Hull, American Secretary of State.

theatlantic:

War on Terror Hawks Cannot Fail, They Can Only Be Failed

Questioning the claim that Americans now are more vulnerable to terrorism, and probing its implications.

Read more. [Image: Reuters]

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This
newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung
dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies.
Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its
attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I
retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering,
as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

The war drums of Syrian intervention beat at a fevered pace.

Amid the manufactured din and bedlam of military hawks and war profiteers, there is much noise made about whether chemical weapons exist or are being used in the Syrian Civil War. However, that question is, in fact, irrelevant. Chemical weapons or not, military intervention in Syria without (1) a congressional declaration of war or similar statutory authorization; or (2) “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” would violate both the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This is NOT a complex nor contentious legal issue, and, despite our sympathies for the beleaguered Syrian people, any unilateral Presidential action to the contrary would amount to rank lawlessness and policy making by Executive fiat. 

But don’t just take my word for it. I’m just a measly nobody hunched over a book and a glowing screen. Listen to these two men, both brilliant political minds and Constitutional scholars, make the same argument for me:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action…”
Barack Obama (2007)

"Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris. you’ve known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that — and I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly." 
Joe Biden (2007)

newshour:

Diminishing Checks and Balances for U.S. Commanders in Chief Considering War 

The last official declaration of war from the U.S. Congress was in 1941, but the United States has been engaged in frequent military conflict since then. Ray Suarez sits down with Marvin Kalb to discuss the evolving power of the president in his book “The Road to War: Presidential Commitments Honored and Betrayed.” 

"If [the President], tomorrow morning, decides we were going to go in and attack Iran, who would stop him? No one. You would learn about it and report it."

Must watch.