We are indisputably committing acts of war against Libya.  If anyone thinks otherwise, they need to explain why that if another country were doing the same to us why it would not be war.

The problem isn't war, it's the scumbags we elect playing semantics with terms like war, presidential powers, or basically any wording in the Constitution they don't find to their liking.

The Constitution has become a bible in which whatever the reader believes can be found and twisted to miraculously fit their agenda.  It's real meaning, like the Bible's, is of no consequence.

I feel the same way about this:

I feel like I have been sniffing glue, what used to be up is now down.  Obama is basically doing what their Messiah did in '86, and isn't war suppose to be their thing, now, not so much.

Is nothing sacred in politics, republicans are suppose to get h..dons over bombing Libya and Pakistan.

Then a Democrat President playing shell games with the meaning of the word 'war' while the country is tossing the poor in the garbage so we can essentially sustain 3 global wars and tax cuts for the rich.

Oops, Gates called it a "limited kinetic action."

Speaking today on 60 Minutes, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied that the US was actually "at war" with Libya, saying he prefers to think of it as a "limited kinetic action" against Libya.

At the same time, Gates conceded that if he was "in Gadhafi's shoes" he would think of it as a war. [Duh!] The comments come two months after a UN resolution which authorized a "no-fly zone" that directly led to US and French attacks on Libya. (My emphasis)

A little while ago it was not a war because it didn't rise to the level of hostilities....

Wall Street Braces for Layoffs as Profits Wane

Wall Street plans to get smaller this summer. Faced with weak markets and uncertainty over regulations, many of the biggest firms are preparing for deep cuts in jobs and other costs.

The cutback plans are emerging even as Wall Street firms have mostly recovered from the financial crisis and are reporting substantial profits again. But those profits are not as big as they were before the crisis, and it is expected that in the coming months it will be even more difficult for firms to make money. Worries about debt in Europe and the shape that the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul rules will ultimately take, combined with the usual summer doldrums, are prompting banks to act.

"It's a tense environment right now," said Glenn Schorr, an analyst with the investment bank Nomura.

Even Goldman Sachs, Wall Street's most profitable firm, is retrenching. Senior executives at Goldman have concluded they need to cut 10 percent, or $1 billion, of noncompensation expenses over the next 12 months, according to a person close to the matter who was not authorized to speak on the record. The big pullback will cause Goldman employees, who have already been ordered to cut costs, to re-examine every aspect of their business.

The firm, this person said, had not set final targets for layoffs, but Goldman was "certain" to shrink headcount in the coming months. Decisions on bonuses are still months away, but they are sure to come down as well if business does not pick up.

Job losses arrive on Wall Street?  Surely, the apocalypse is nigh, right?  Will this mean some attention, finally, to jobs in general (lol) or will this just mean more effort to give Wall Street more of what it wants?  

I'm going with Door No. 2 (which is the right number, actually, since that's what it smells like - #2).

Sad to see that after years of railing against the Republicans who never met a rationale for war (or spying or secrecy or whatever) that didn't make sense to them, everything apparently looks different to far too many Democrats when the same - or worse - policies are emanating from a Democratic administration.

Proof to me that people pay much less attention to policy than they do to personality, or whose "team" someone is on, than they should, which is probably one reason things are in the craptastic state they're in.