No one ever went broke betting on the hypocrisy of congressional Republicans.
Tom Andrews | Posted 07.17.2009 | Politics
After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congressional progressives have a chance to do just that.
Jane Hamsher | Posted 07.16.2009 | Politics
In 2007, 82 Democratic members of Congress signed a pledge to not fund the war in Iraq without plans for troop withdrawal. Tuesday, they must vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act.
HuffingtonPost.com | Jeff Muskus | Posted 07.16.2009 | Politics
In anticipation of Tuesday's House vote on the war supplemental spending bill, which still includes money for the International Monetary Fund but not ...
Robert Naiman | Posted 07.13.2009 | World
The White House and the House leadership want progressive Democrats in the House to abandon their constituents, their commitments, and their principles and vote for the War/IMF supplemental. But when progressive Democrats tried to have input into the process earlier, they were locked out by the leadership, on orders from the White House and Treasury.
Nathan Havey | Posted 07.12.2009 | Politics
We need to stay engaged in Afghanistan, but we need a radically different strategy that emphasizes quality of life for the Afghan people, regional diplomacy, and for God's sake, a reduction of boots on the ground.
Politico | Posted 07.12.2009 | Politics
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just made two seemingly contradictory assertions: First, that so-called "torture" photos of interrogations won't ev...
Mark Weisbrot | Posted 07.12.2009 | Politics
Obama and the House Democrats can't seem to muscle the votes they need to pass a $108 billion appropriation for the IMF. The stakes are high for both the administration, and the world.
Jodie Evans | Posted 07.11.2009 | World
Money spent on military would be much better spent on infrastructure, jobs, and international partnerships. People don't have the tools the need to move toward a peaceful reality.
Mark Weisbrot | Posted 07.10.2009 | Politics
The Obama administration wants $108 billion for the IMF. Why? Most of the Central and Eastern European economies are in free fall right now, and they're counting on the IMF to save their banks.
HuffingtonPost.com | Jeff Muskus | Posted 07.09.2009 | Politics
With the war supplemental under fire from some unlikely allies in the House, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) threatened Mond...
HuffingtonPost.com | Thomas B. Edsall | Posted 07.08.2009 | Politics
President Obama, who has suffered relatively few setbacks in the Democratic-controlled Congress, has allowed one key administration bill -- the $96.7 ...
Robert Naiman | Posted 07.06.2009 | World
The Administration is combining two sets of policies -- endless war and IMF austerity -- that most progressive Democrats vigorously oppose; and are trying to ram them through by strong-arm tactics.
HuffingtonPost.com | Jeff Muskus | Posted 07.04.2009 | Politics
House Republicans, allied with anti-war Democrats, may be the best hope to save the Freedom of Information Act from the White House or to oppose troop...
Robert Naiman | Posted 07.04.2009 | World
Why would Democrats vote to give $100 billion in U.S. tax dollars to the International Monetary Fund with no effective strings attached?
Alex Conant | Posted 05.10.2009 | Politics
One might expect Obama to mount an aggressive campaign to educate and rally the public around his new Afghanistan strategy, just as he did for his economic stimulus and budget. But instead, he's doing the opposite.
HuffingtonPost.com | Max Follmer | Posted 03.28.2008 | Politics
In a shift of strategy that indicates an increasingly weakened political position, President Bush has included at least $2.51 billion for projects unr...
Think Progress | Posted 03.28.2008 | Politics
In light of the administration's increasingly threatening rhetoric on Iran, CQ reports that members of Congress are worried by Bush's recent budget pr...
Scott Payne | Posted 07.19.2009 | Politics