Lighting the Match to War in the Middle East (a special editorial by John Lucia)

President Bust speaks often about the proliferation of weapons in the world and condemns other nations who engage in such acts. We now know his talk does not match his actions. On September 11, before the Senate Armed Service Committee, General Petraeus announced the United States could sell up to over $3 billion of arms to Iraq, the country once described as an ammo dump. This sale announcement comes only after a few weeks when the President said the U.S. will be selling billions of dollars in arms to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Middle East is already a powder keg, now Mr. Bush wants to light the match. Is it any wonder the U.S. has lost its creditability under this President?

Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Now he wants to make up for that and arm them. Lets not forget, it was the U.S. under previous republican administration who sold arms to Iraq and gave them intelligence during their war with Iran. A war that was started by Iraq. It was a time when Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran and our government knew about it. So is it really surprising Iran and other countries look to the Soviet Union and others to build up their own arsenals?

The reckless actions of Mr. Bush to arm the Middle East has to be reversed by congress. We have a president gone mad. Congress can't let him destroy what America stands for. Mr. Bush has already tried to play God in Iraq and failed. Unfortunately innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform have paid the ultimate price for his mistake. Now he is trying to play God again. Every member of congress has to step up and say no loud and clear.

This is it....the final quarter---my early predictions for the nominees

I think it just hit me today, this is the last day of the 3rd quarter for 2007. That means that we are essentially a little over 3 months away from the Iowa Caucus...and then New Hampshire....and South Carolina....and so on. This is the time when people really start paying attention and when candidates really get serious. Now, unlike the summer, there is absolutely no room for mistakes or slip-ups. With only a few more months to go, let me give you my predictions for what will happen in the January caucuses and primaries and the rest of the nomination process.

I'll start with the Democrats. Iowa will be the true battle-ground state, as Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are virtually tied in polls and have been for quite some time. If Clinton can win here, it's all over. She has a 20 point lead in New Hampshire and its growing. She is also polling ahead in South Carolina and Florida. Even if Edwards was to win Iowa, I don't believe he could get the nomination. He wouldn't have enough money to compete with Hillary in New Hampshire and the other states. On the other hand, if Obama wins Iowa, Hillary would face some serious problems. He is the only candidate who could match her money-wise and he could essentially use the momentum from Iowa to catapult himself through New Hampshire and so on. So my recommendation for Hillary is to do everything humanly possible to win Iowa, or at least make sure Obama doesn't win. An Obama win wouldn't necessarily end her chances, but he would make her fight for the nomination, and I'm sure thats something the Hillary campaign wouldn't like. So my prediction for the democratic nomination right now is Hillary, but as Obama continues to gain in Iowa, he might be able to make me change my prediction.

Now onto the Republican candidates. First of all I will start by saying that the Fred Thompson excitement is gone. I will guarantee that Fred will not be the nominee. I'll also confidently say that I don't think John McCain will be the nominee either. It boils down to Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani. Romney looks like a sure thing when it comes to winning the Iowa caucus. He is polling ahead in New Hampshire, but his lead there has shrunk dramatically and Rudy is gaining. If Romney can win both Iowa and New Hampshire then I see him being the nominee. However, if Rudy can win New Hampshire, or at least keep Romney from winning, then the race is wide open. Guiliani is stronger than Romney in South Carolina and Florida. They only way Romney could win those states would be to use the momentum from two huge wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, much like John Kerry in '04. So for my pick for the GOP, I'm going to go with Guiliani, but don't, by any means, count Romney out of this race. He could still very much win the GOP nomination.

And for my prediction for the general----I see a Democrat winning and I think Hillary has the best chance of any Democrat to do so. If Romney is the GOP nominee I see him being easily defeated in a general election. Guiliani would be a much stronger candidate and could potentially lead to a GOP upset in '08, although I am very skeptical it will happen.

Ron Paul---He chooses to be an American Above All ( a special editorial by John Lucia)

Representative Ron Paul, a Republican Candidate for President has been described as a Conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a Libertarian but most importantly he is an American first, which is the way it should be. His republican opponents are just the opposite. Mr. Paul continues to be the voice of reason on Iraq for the republican party and his position and comments on Iraq receive more applause from the audience than the other candidates.

Mr. Paul understands this war was a war of choice over WMD that did not exist and was not a necessary war that affected our national security. His opponents have no answers to his position on the war except the same worn out status quo and are unable to articulate how a war over WMD that did not exist turn into a civil war with our troops in the middle. They have also hinted the war may last 10 years.

Now Mr. Paul's opponents are openly talking about attacking Iran and starting a war there. He rightly points out that Iran has not attacked or occupied any other country and a U.S. attack would be at odds with our stated principals as a nation and would also constitute illegal action by our country. Can anyone remember a time in our recent History where so many republicans try to talk tough and are so willing to commit our nation and men and women in uniform to war so casually?

I hope Mr. Paul keeps speaking his mind and that he stays an American first. Our constitution backs his position on war. The republican party needs a sound person like Mr. Paul who puts his country and its people first. Its no accident that Mr. Paul has won most of the republican debates as shown by the online and text-in votes of ordinary people.

The Latest 2008 General Election Poll

Fox News and Dynamics have just come out with a new poll concerning the 2008 general election for president. And conservatives might want to take note that their attacks on Hillary are not working. They are making her stronger. Take a look:

3 Way Race:

-Rudy Guiliani(R): 32%-----down 5% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 42%----up 3% from 3 months ago
-Mike Bloomberg(I): 7%----same as 3 months ago

2 Way Races:

-Rudy Guiliani(R): 39%----down 6% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 4% from 3 months ago

-Fred Thompson(R): 35%--down 3% from 2 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 48%---up 1% from 2 months ago

-John McCain(R): 39%----down 4% from 3 months ago
-Hillary Clinton(D): 46%---up 3% from 3 months ago

-Rudy Guiliani(R): 40%----down 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 41%---down 4% from 2 months ago

-John McCain(R): 38%-----up 1% from 2 months ago
-Barack Obama(D): 40%---down 7% from 2 months ago

These polls show a clear distinction---in a general election, despite what some in the media say, Hillary is a much, much stronger candidate than Barack Obama. This has to be attributed to her experience and her foreign policy credentials. A lot of people will say poll numbers this early mean nothing, but I must say, they are dead wrong. More Americans are following this election closer than any previous election in history. Polls show as much as 40% of the country have already made a decision on who they're voting for. These polls show a clear trend---Hillary gains, Republicans fall while Obama falls and Republicans rise.

What Part of Our Past Will the Future Reflect? (a special editorial by John Lucia)

Recorded History tells us our future is shaped by our past. In 14 months the people will elect a new President to lead us into that future. Do we want to maintain the arrogant status quo of the Bush administration and his reckless decisions and policies or will we the people cast our votes for a candidate who understands the challenges ahead and the mistakes of the past 8 years.

President Bush paid no attention to the success of our past leaders who guided our country with wisdom, character and moral authority. Instead, he misled the people over and over concerning the war in Iraq, the war on terror and our national security.

Do we want our next President to try to talk tough and keep our country in a perpetual war with the world or will we elect a President who will change course, change policies, work with our allies, and offer hope to our country and the world. The next President will have to balance our military commitments with our many domestic commitments. He will have to balance the federal budget and reverse the 8 years of record federal budget deficits that Bush will have accumulated when he leaves office.

Our new leader will have to be about our future and making progress that really advances our country and its people. He will have to restore value in our foreign policies and return confidence in our governments business and restore the checks and balances that our founders fought for.

The voting public has a responsibility to cast their votes for the candidate whose policy will advance the lives of our children and grandchildren and adhere to those principals that made our country great. The voter will have to look beyond the show business of journalism, especially television journalists who do their best to influence the vote. Some of them flat-out lie.

Every voter can make up his or her own mind by giving each candidate a good honest look. Let the candidates positions determine our vote. Voters are mature enough to sift through all the charges and counter charges that will be presented; they don't need the media telling them who to vote for.

The 2008 election is about our future. Let the past define what the U.S. is about and guide our vote and future. Our generations who vote in 2008 will take charge of our future. Will it be a vote to learn from our past mistakes and return our country to the progressive ideals that our founding fathers revealed in our constitution? Like the past the future is in our hands, lets take advantage of it in November 2008.

9/26 Democratic Debate Analysis

Yesterday, the eight Democrats running for their party's nomination for President met in New Hampshire to debate. Some had a good night, others, not so good.

Senator Hillary Clinton entered the front-runner and left the front-runner, and when you're running this far ahead in polls, thats a good place for Hillary to be. She was pressed hard on many issues, and quite frankly, I'm surprised at how well she handled them. Edwards grilled her on several issues, including her vote on the Iraq War and her healthcare plan. Gravel said that he was disgraced at her vote earlier in the day on Iran. Notably absent from the seeming slaughter of Clinton was the man who needed to do it the most, Barack Obama (but more on him in a little bit). The best moment of the night for Hillary came when moderator Tim Russert asked her whether or not she would condone torture, and Hillary forcefully said absolutely not. Russert then brought up the fact that Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband, had once said that he would support it. Hillary responded with, "Well he's not standing up here right now is he?" With that one line, Hillary did what she needed to do this entire campaign: make the point that her last name might be Clinton, but her first name is not Bill. She is not Bill Clinton, she is Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama could have ruined months of hard work he and his campaign put in to New Hampshire. His performance was absolutely horrendous. His campaign claim that Obama was ill, but that is no excuse. The charisma that we have all grown to love from Obama was completely absent. He was cloudy with most of his answers while at other times he literally just re-worded the answers from other candidates. His failure to go after Hillary will cost him. If anyone can stop her, it's him, and he must do it soon. In fact, in might be too late. Last night was Obama's chance to make an impact and begin to break Hillary's campaign down. But I'm afraid for Obama that he may have done the opposite. He may have lost himself supporters, and those supporters might just jump to the Hillary, or even Edwards, campaign.

John Edwards was on fire last night. Other than Hillary, he was the winner. He came off strong and forceful, yet kept his southern charm. I won't be surprised if Edwards gets a little boost in the poll numbers, especially in New Hampshire, from his performance. Unlike Obama, he made his differences clear from the other candidates, and gave Americans his plan for the country.

Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel were all okay. None of them made any huge mistakes, but they, yet again, fail to ignite a flame under their campaign. That, with their lack of money, will keep them from winning the primaries. A few might even want to consider dropping out.

The Right Wing Conservatives in the Media (a special editorial by John Lucia)

You know them by name and the lack of substance in their talk on T.V. and Radio. They continue to bash Democrats while the Republicans are running the country. They do that because they can't articulate what they themselves, and other so called conservative republicans, stand for.

They always speak on issues that divide the country instead of those that unite us. They like to talk about the U.S. going to war to prove to the world the U.S. is the leading military power in the world and therefore can do whatever we want to do. They have a lot of influence, not because they are right but because they only tell half the story and mislead people.

They try to cloak themselves with moral and family values and patriotism to hide their own character problems. They feel so inadequate they lash out at Veterans in an effort to hide their own guilt feelings. They believe in Ronald Reagan's commandment of never speak ill of another republican even if they do something that puts our country at risk. They flash names of elected officials on the T.V. screen knowingly with the wrong party affiliation to try and deceive their viewers. Some of them screen their calls because they can't handle the truth. They share the same ideology as the neocon politicians.

They act like cry babies when they invite Bill Maher and President Clinton on their shows and Maher and Clinton get the best of them. They end up shouting at people on their shows when they can't get their way. That is the mark of an insecure person. They try to give the impression they support our troops but are now beating the drums of war concerning Iran.

They represent the worse in free speech on the air because they lack the character necessary to compete with the facts and truth in an open society. You know who they are. Many of them work or appear on the Fox News Channel and on radio, on the EIB network and on CNN's Headline News talk shows. But there is one thing you will never hear them talk about. What did they do for their country during their generation's war. That says it all.

Quick Debate Analysis

I will be back tomorrow with a full analysis, but right now, just 5 minutes after the debate, let me give you my initial reaction.

Hillary Clinton: Came of charming and presidential. She didn't lose and she wasn't upstaged, that makes her the winner.

Barack Obama: His worse performance yet. He was sloppy and unusually un-charismatic.

John Edwards: the runner-up tonight. He was forceful and set himself up as the alternative to Clinton.

Joe Biden, Chris Dodd: not bad, not great, just okay.

Bill Richardson: again, this guy can not debate. He only talks about his past accomplishments instead of what he will do in the future.

Dennis Kucinich: He's getting better at debates, but it wasn't anything that can help his terribly low poll numbers.

Mike Gravel: As strange as this guy must be, I actually thought he did a good job getting his point across tonight, regardless of how weird his points are.

Hillary does the Sunday Circuit

Democratic Presidential front-runner and New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, made an appearance on all five of the Sunday Morning talk shows yesterday: Fox News Sunday, Face the Nation, Late Edition, This Week, and Meet the Press. While there was no new major news coming from Sen. Clinton, she looked presidential and most importantly answered the questions, instead of the dodging we often see from politicians.

Perhaps one of the best moments came in her interview with Fox. Chris Wallace asked her why she is so partisan. At this moment, Hillary busted out in laughter. It was the perfect moment and a "who the hell are you to call me partisan?" moment.

When she was asked whether her healthcare plan would cover illegal immigrants, she rightfully said no. Her plan is for Americans.

When asked whether the MoveOn.org ad criticizing Gen. Petraeus was right Clinton responded saying, "Absolutely not." She stressed that in no way does she condone or support attacking the patriotism of men and women who serve in the military. It was a perfect moment to show her dedication to the country. She also brought up how it is partially hypocritical for Republicans to jump on MoveOn.org when they too have attacked the patriotism of military men, most recently Sen. John Kerry. Sen. Clinton made it clear that Congress, the President, and the American people should not have their attention focused on MoveOn, as no lives are lost in words, but thousands have been lost in this War. The Republicans have used the ad to stop talking about the Iraq War, and thats not right.

Overall Sen. Clinton looked like a commander-in-chief being interviewed. It is not hard to see why she is doing so well in the polls. She comes off more and more friendly and warm every time she's on TV. She has learned how to stay calm under pressure and as I said earlier, she's learned that she needs to be straight forward with her audience. All she has to do is continue what she's doing and she will win the nomination, and likely, the presidency.

Why we need Democrats to be elected in 2008: (a special editorial by John Lucia)

The United States and its people will be better off in 2008 if the Democrat majority is returned to Congress and a Democrat is elected President. Unlike Republicans, Democrats do not meet every day to discuss talking points and then flood the airways and repeat the same, worn-out, self-serving statements over and over again like robots.

Republicans stick together and rubber stamp anything a Republican President wants. All one has to do is look at the first six years of Bush's administration with the Republican controlled congress. They gave Mr. Bush every thing he asked for. When you have that kind of rubber stamp there is not only no debate, but issues don't matter. To them, it is their politics over the needs of the American people.

Democrats provide the balance within their own party even when there is a Democratic president. Democrats are more independent thinkers and are more in tune to getting the job done correctly because they have more viewpoints and will consider alternatives. That stands well for the country and its people and is in keeping with the checks and balances of government.

A good example is their positions on the war in Iraq. They want to end the war but have their own individual ideas about how to best do so. The Republicans just rubber stamp the Bush war positions and have no original thought.

Democrats offer a debate on the issues that affect our country. That is good for our people because problems must be solved with facts instead of ideology.

Republicans preach fiscal responsibility then give us the largest deficits in the history of the U.S. That is what has happened in the first 6 years of Bush's administration and the republican control of congress. Both the President and the republican controlled congress will go down in history as the "Rubber Stamp Administration".

Journalist like to say the Democrats are divided, but being elected by the people, Democrats understand that just because they belong to a certain party, it does not mean to just go with the flow. It means you have to be independent of thought in order to come up with the right solutions to solve problems and have a real, meaningful debate.

Republicans can't have any independent thought or departure from their ideology. Mr. Paul O'Neill, Mr. Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury said it best when he reported in his book that when a cabinet meeting was called concerning a subject matter, he found that the decision had already been made and that there was no process. When there is no process and discussions there is no real debate.

A Democratic President and Congress will insure a debate on the issues and their independent thought will insure the checks and balances needed to really have a government represented by the people.

The Triumph of Reality over Myth (a special editorial by John Lucia)

MYTH: America is safer today because of the war in Iraq.

REALITY: Iraq is accomplishing something they could not do prior to our invasion. That is kill Americans. Almost 4 thousand and there is no end in sight.

MYTH: We have to stay in Iraq to deny Al Queda in Iraq a base of operation.

REALITY: The war in Iraq created Al Queda in Iraq and they have already established a base there to launch
their attack on our troops.

MYTH: Iraq's people will welcome us with open arms when we invade their country.

REALITY: The Iraqi's welcomed us with four and half years of war so far and no end in sight. Over 2 million
Iraqi's have fled their country under the U.S. occupation.

MYTH: Iraqi's Oil will pay for the war and occupation.

REALITY: The war has cost the U.S. tax payers over half a trillion dollars and counting.

MYTH: Iraq had stockpiles of WMD ready to use against the U.S. or transferred to terrorist.

REALITY: Iraq had no WMD at no time during Mr. Bush's administration.

MYTH: Overthrowing Saddam will stabilize Iraq and the middle east.

REALITY: The war has destabilized Iraq and the middle east and a civil war is now taking place in Iraq.

MYTH: Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear program.

REALITY: Iraq did no such thing and they could not produce the feared mushroom cloud.

MYTH: The War in Iraq would be a cake walk.

REALITY: Well into the 5th year of war, America has suffered over 30,000 casualties. A cake walk?

MYTH: Saddam was a threat to the whole region.

REALITY: The war proved Saddam was a threat only to his own people.

MYTH: Republicans can best protect our country and national security.

REALITY: The worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened on President Bush's watch.

MYTH: Iraq had biological mobile trailers to manufacture WMD.

REALITY: They were used to manufacture hydrogen.

MYTH: Mission accomplished and major combat operations have ended.

REALITY: Mission has not been accomplished and major combat operations are still in progress.

MYTH: We know exactly where their WMD are located.

REALITY: There were no WMD to be found.

MYTH: Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Niger.

REALITY: Our own intelligence people said it never happened. The U.N. said it was bogus.


Can anyone remember another American President who has misled his country and people so often and over so long a period of time as Mr. Bush?

NOTE: President Clinton's administration went 7 years and 9 months without a foreign terror attack on U.S. soil. The Bush administration will never equal that record of keeping America safe.

IRAN: The Drum Beat for War (a special editorial by John Lucia)

Over four and a half years ago, President Bush and V.P. Cheney started the drum beat to our run up to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. The media, especially television journalists who were intimidated, promoted the war on their own and our men and women in uniform are still paying the price for those mistakes.

Now the drums are beating to go to war with Iran for the same reason. All the major cable networks are talking about it; Fox network runs headlines every day about going to war with Iran; Glen Beck, the nobody, promotes it on his show. And now someone has leaked to the media that the U.S. has already drawn up the plans to strike Iran.

Our war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist has already destabilized Iraq and the middle east and now the nuts are promoting another war in the middle east with Iran. Israel, Pakistan and India don't answer to anyone concerning their nuclear program and their WMD while Iran answers to the United Nations inspectors. It is obvious intelligent people know more about what is going on in Iran than the other 3 closed countries.

President Eisenhower warned about the dangers of a military-industrial complex that benefits from wars at the expense of the people. The reckless war in Iraq has given us $80 barrel oil. We know who benefits from that. In a recent book, retired Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that is what the Iraq war was about, oil. He knew that from day one but is only saying something now after over 30,000 american casualties. He also made the self serving statement that Iraq was a threat to the world oil supply. The war itself proved that wrong.

We have leaders in the world who would recklessly lead us into another war, this time, with Iran, under false pretenses. Some of them won't be satisfied until they start a nuclear war where the survivors will envy the dead.

We all know who fight these wars. It's not elected officials who start them and then move into their bunkers to hide. Today, leaders lack the character and moral courage of our past leaders in handling problems. The only answer now is war. A truly strong leader would try to prevent war.

The Soviet Union with all its military power and WMD were held in check for over 40 years. Now our present leaders try to talk tough and act like kings where they think every one else is their pawns. Iran has not invaded or attacked any country in my lifetime or started a war. The idea that they would attack Israel is foolish. If they did that they know Israel has the capacity to wipe them off the map. Iran may have said Israel should be wiped out but they did not say they would be the ones to do it. They know better.

For those who say preemptive war is good policy remember, two can play that game. If nations are planning to attack Iran, then Iran could obviously say we will use a preemptive strike against those planning to attack them. A foreign policy based on preemption is a policy of failure and folly. Just look at Iraq.

I wonder what the nuts who are promoting a war with Iran would say if Russia stepped in and said we will not sit by if Iran is attacked?

Are there any real world leaders out there with character on the good guys side who is willing to stand up and say enough is enough?

Healthcare for Everyone---Guaranteed!

Regardless of whom you support for president, you have to be happy about this. Today, Sen. Hillary Clinton unveiled her new plan for healthcare reform and I must say it's about damn time. It is so sad to think that there are so many Americans---over 7 million children---without healthcare insurance...that there are so many Americans that can't afford to get treated. Healthcare, whether some would like to admit it or not, is indeed a matter of life and death at times. Everyone should have healthcare, it should be a right guaranteed by the government for its people. Here is some of the highlights of what Clinton said in her speech today:

"Today as we strive for a new beginning to the 21st century, I believe that everyone — every man, woman and child — should have quality, affordable health care in America. We can no longer tolerate the injustice of a system that shuts out nearly one in six Americans."

Under her plan, people could keep their existing plans or pick new choices. Other options include those similar to the insurance given to federal employees as well as a new Medicare-style plan that would cost less. Businesses would be required to provide insurance for employees. No matter what plan one would choose, it is guaranteed that everyone will have health care.

She would pay for the plan by ending Republican tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and by saving billions by reorganizing the health care system. She would also ban insurance companies from turning people down based on pre-existing health conditions. No one could be denied insurance.

"Now I know that these proposals will not make me the insurance industry’s woman of the year, but I don’t think I’ve been in the running for that title since 1993. The idea is not to put the health insurance industry out of business, but to help it find a better way to make a living.”

Clinton stresses that she will not strip people of their current health insurance. She wants the American people to have flexibility and options:

"People who are satisfied with their current coverage want assurances that they can keep it. Part of our health care system is the best in the world, and we should build on it; part of the system is broken, and we should fix it...You’ll never again have to worry about finding affordable coverage. Your coverage will be guaranteed."

On her Republican opponents, Clinton stated:

"Don’t let them fool us again. This is not government-run — there will be no new bureaucracy, you can keep the doctors you know and trust, you keep the insurance you have, if you like that. But this plan expands personal choice and keeps costs down."

Perhaps the most powerful part of the speech came when she was asked about '94 and whether or not she gave up after her defeat:

"Why would I give up on America and the American people? For so many years I have listened to their stories, I carry their stories with me every day, and perhaps more than everyone else, I know how hard this fight will be. But that’s why I’m running for president.”

Hillary has the best healthcare plan out there right now. It guarantees healthcare for EVERYONE, but at the same time gives people options. It doesn't tell them what they have to do. No one will be forced to do anything, yet potentially millions of lives could be bettered and some possibly saved.

Neocons and their warped ideology (a special editorial by John Lucia)

Neocon Republicans believe they and only they have the answers to life and its many problems; they believe they and only they possess moral and family values; they believe they and only they know good and evil; they believe they and only they know how people should live their lives; they believe they and only they are patriotic and know what is best for the world; they believe they and only they can remake the U.S. and other countries in their own warped image...And sadly they believe they can tell the same lies over and over again and often enough that the people will buy into their ideology and believe their lies.

Neocon Republicans have the worst of all character problems. They can't admit to any mistakes; they are hypocrites who accuse others but yet are guilty themselves of the same accusations; they believe they can act in any manner to further their neoconservative beliefs; they believe the way to govern is to divide the people and push divisive issues; they believe in passing the buck instead of accepting responsibility for their own failures.

Neocon Republicans feel so inadequate they brand anyone who does not support their position as unpatriotic; they feel so inadequate they try to talk tough, yet many of them were of prime age during their generations war and they cut and ran. They try to assert they are the protectors of our National Security but more Americans have been killed on their watch by terrorists in the last 40 years than all the Democratic Presidents combined who served during that time and the tragic events of 9-11 was the worst ever foreign terror attack on U.S. soil. Moreover they support a war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and now say we have to stay in Iraq well into the future.

With the exception of Ron Paul, does the rhetoric coming from the present republican group of candidates running for President sound familiar? That should be a warning to our nation and to the people. The Supreme Court elected one President over 6 years ago. This time around the country needs a leader with the character to stand up and be an American and one elected by the people.

Clark endorses Clinton

General Wesley Clark, a retired four star general and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the Kosovo War, has endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Having been involved with wars himself, he states that she is the best person to deal with the War in Iraq as well as new challenges that will undoubtedly rise in the coming years:

"Senator Hillary Clinton has earned the support of millions of Americans in her campaign for president -- and today I am pleased to count myself among them. The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. I believe Senator Clinton is that leader, and I whole-heartedly endorse her for President of the United States. Senator Clinton and I share a worldview in which diplomacy is the best first-strike tool in our arsenal; in today's complicated global system, the United States should be making more friends than enemies. Never before have so many Americans had our well-being so closely tied to world events. Our economic and national security has become more complicated than ever before, and we deserve a leader who draws on wisdom, compassion, intelligence and moral courage -- in short, we need Hillary Clinton. She is tough but fair, a rock-solid leader equal to the many weighty challenges ahead of us."

This is a huge endorsement for Hillary Clinton. General Clark is highly respected by both parties and in military circles. Clark is an expert on foreign and military affairs and will strengthen the public's view of Hillary on those issues. It will be interesting to see if he campaigns for her, as that would be a huge asset for the Clinton campaign. There is already rumors on the internet about Clark serving as VP or in a cabinet position. That may be thinking a little too far ahead, but I'll for one be watching this situation very closely, as it should give a boost to the Clinton campaign.

Rudy's secret to success...Bill Clinton?

During a speech in Louisiana, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudy Guiliani, had this to say:

"I have a letter...I keep it at home. It's a letter from President Clinton saying something like the crime bill couldn't have been passed if it weren't for me. I keep this letter; I'm going to use it at the right moment...You can imagine when."

Not only is that statement creepy in a way, it's also absurd for Guiliani to think that a letter from Bill Clinton means anything. If all it was about was a crime bill, what the hell does that matter? Nobody, not even democrats, deny that Guiliani got a crime bill passed when he was mayor. The thing is, as President, you have to have more on your record than passing a crime bill. A resume of taking hookers off of street corners can only go so far when running for president of this country. We need someone with experience in foreign affairs, and regardless of what Guiliani wants you to believe, he does not have that.

Where have all our leaders gone? (a special editorial by John Lucia)

When I remember our past Presidential leaders since WWII, it is sad to think about our present leadership and some of the candidates who are running to be our next President.

Presidents Roosevelt and Truman presided over WWII and Truman lived to see the war end on his watch. It was a brutal war against two major powers, Germany and Japan. Neither presidents were in the news media every day trying to talk tough nor did they talk and brag about killing our enemies. They went about their job as the leader of the free world who respected life and did not take war lightly. There was enough killing without them talking about it. Our nation won the war at great cost without stooping to the low of our adversaries.

Presidents Truman and Eisenhower presided over the Korean war and Eisenhower saw the war end on his watch. The Korean war has been referred to by many as the forgotten war. But it was not forgotten by our men and women in uniform who served during that war or their families waiting back home. President Eisenhower said he would do what he could to end the war and he did. Neither presidents were in the news media every day trying to talk tough or talking about killing people. The United States under their leadership rolled back the invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans and our men and women in uniform answered the call in Korea only five years after the end of WWII.

Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower did not go looking for war because they understood war and the consequences. Instead, they answered the call with our ideals intact and prosecuted both wars with the character that makes us the great moral nation we are.

President Kennedy presided over the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when Russia installed long and short range missiles in Cuba with their stock pile of nuclear war heads. These WMD were just 90 miles from our shore and if launched could have struck a large section of the U.S. and inflicted casualties never before seen in our country. Those who would have survived and absorbed the nuclear fall out would live a nightmare the rest of their life. President Kennedy was ready to invade Cuba if necessary and had our armed forces in place if it came to that, but having experienced war himself sought out advise from many inside and outside his administration and came up with a plan and Russia removed their missiles and their threat. President Kennedy also showed the UN and the world photographic evidence of those WMD and their launch pads. There were no doubts. The President faced a most severe challenge and was not in the news media trying to talk and act tough, nor was he talking about killing people casually. The Russian action in Cuba was 1000 times more dangerous to our national security than the trumped up charges against Iraq of WMD that did not exist. Like Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, President Kennedy took the moral high ground in asserting our nations character.

President George H.W. Bush summoned the U.N. to join the U.S. in a coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait after they invaded that country. The President being a veteran who experienced war rejected those neocons who wanted the war to extend to Baghdad and instead ended the war after Iraq was ejected. Iraq was then subjected to several U.N. resolutions, and requirements, including the restriction of a no fly zone and Iraq has not been a serious threat since to our national security. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and the former President Bush showed what real american leadership is all about when it comes to war and committing our nation and men and women in uniform to war. They would not sacrifice our proud tradition of moral leadership for tough talk and bluster. All five Presidents worked to end the wars or the threat of war and accomplished their mission.

The reckless behavior of the current President, who took our country to a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist, was a betrayal of our American ideals and what America really stands for. He acted like a child in the war against Al Qaeda when he told them "to bring it on" and when he said to our long standing allies "your either with us or against us." Unlike our past presidents Mr. Bush likes to try and talk tough and likes to talk about killing over and over again. Well into the fourth year of the war in Iraq, the President still does not have a plan to end it nor does he have a plan to engage Al Qaeda. And now we know he intends to hand over the war to the next President.

With the exception of Ron Paul, most of the other Republican candidates running for President have rubber stamped Mr. Bush's so called tough talk and his intentions to keep the war going on long in the future. Some of them have already said we need to keep our troops in Iraq for years to come so they can come home with honor. Well I have news for them. If our men and women in uniform serving in Iraq would come home tomorrow, they would come home with honor. The republicans who said that are the ones without honor.

In 2008 the american people will have the opportunity to vote for a new President. This time around we, the people, need a leader with character who can tell the people the truth and have the wisdom to understand and follow the principals that made our country great.

The "36 nations" also fighting the War on Terror in Iraq

In his prime time address to the nation on thursday night, President Bush talked about "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq" fighting the War on Terror along with us. Basically he made it sound as if the U.S. was just one of 37 nations fighting the war. But its time for a fact check. There are 26, not 36, nations, including us, with troops(or a troop as it turns out to be) in Iraq, but lets take a look at troop numbers shall we?

-----United States: 168,000 troops

----U.K.: 5500 troops

---Australia: 1500 troops

--South Korea: 1200 troops

-Poland: 900
-Romania: 405
-El Salvador: 300
-Georgia: 300
-Azerbaijan: 250
-Fiji: 168
-Bulgaria: 155
-Albania: 120
-Mongolia: 100

-Czech Republic: 89
-Denmark: 55
-Armenia: 46
-Macedonia: 40
-Bosnia: 37
-Kazakhstan: 29
-Moldova: 12
-Italy: 8
-Turkey: 2
-Estonia: 1
-Canada: 1
-Iceland:1
-New Zealand: 1

So there you have it, the 26 nations currently in Iraq. I should note that if you add up all of the other country's troops, it doesn't even equal 7% the number of troops we have. It is completely irresponsible for the President to make it sound as if we're just one of many nations fighting the War in Iraq. There's a difference between those countries who have troops there for diplomatic reasons and the U.S., who is using their troops to police the streets of Baghdad.

Oh, and on a side note, I read something today about Iceland maybe pulling out of Iraq. Some body better break the news to the President that we're going to have one less ally, in fact, one less person, in Iraq.

Gingrich on 2008 Election, Hillary Clinton, and more

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had some very interesting and insightful comments on the 2008 election and the candidates running when he sat down with National Journal for an interview this week.

When asked about the Democrat's chances of winning the Presidency in 2008, Newt had this to say:

"I think that the country, after the last couple of years, has a bias in favor of change -- I think probably starting with Katrina and coming through Baghdad and the whole sense of too much spending. And you sense a lack of enthusiasm in the conservative base, and you sense a stunning level of intensity in the anti-war Left. And so you just look at the dynamics and you have to say the odds are probably 80-20...Now, it could change. If you had a Republican candidate who could break out and who could say, 'Obviously, we need to change pretty dramatically, and the party of trial lawyers, public employee unions, and left-wing ideologues probably can't change,' and could force Hillary or Barack Obama or whomever to be the defender of failed bureaucracies, then I think you could see a Republican win next year. But I don't think they can win by passively staying within the framework of where we have been."

When asked about who has the best chance at being the Republican nominee, Newt responded:

"I think there are three or four possible Republican nominees -- Giuliani, Romney, Thompson,Huckabee , and, based on his recent re-energizing,McCain . All of them are smart people. None of them have yet broken out and begun to define a fundamentally different future."

Newt had this to say when asked what the GOP needs to do to regain popularity with Americans:

"We need very bold, dramatic change, change at every level -- from school board to city council to county commission to state legislatures to the presidency. That's what the Republican Party has to stand for. And, frankly, the Republican Party hasn't stood for that."

And perhaps the most interesting answer from Gingrich came when he was asked about Hillary Clinton:

"She is actually much more centrist than MoveOn.org. She is much tougher on military affairs than the Left. She is more rational, and I have very great respect for her as a hardworking professional. No Republican should think she is going to be easy to beat."

And when asked the question if he wanted to run in '08, Gingrich said:

"Not necessarily. I want to serve my country. I don't want to run as an act of habit. I have no great interest in going out to campaign. I have every interest in finding a generation of solutions. So if you said to me, would I be willing to serve my country, the answer is yes...The most tempting thought about running next year is the idea of debating Senator Clinton. That would be fun."

As always, Newt Gingrich offered us his opinions, and I think they will surprise a few. I was surely surprised about how nicely he talked about Sen. Hillary Clinton. He is right about her, she is not as far left as some in her party, and I think Gingrich was trying to imply in that statement that that is why she is such a formable candidate. Its also interesting how he is still flirting with the idea of running in '08. He says not necessarily, but at the same time says he's willing to serve his country. So what exactly does that mean? My guess is that in Newt's world, if he thinks there isn't a candidate who would "serve" America well, then he would run. I think he won't, but he always leaves the door open by answering questions so ambiguously. But again I would just like to close by saying that good for Newt, for once he didn't attack the democrats, in fact, he kind of gave Hillary a compliment.

Democrats React

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a former Army Ranger, delivered the Democratic response to President Bush's address and had the following to say:

"Soldiers take a solemn oath to protect our nation, and we have a solemn responsibility to send them into battle only with clear and achievable missions. Tonight, the president provided neither. An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option...Democrats and Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation cannot, and must not, stand idly by while our interests throughout the world are undermined and our armed forces are stretched toward the breaking point...We intend to exercise our constitutional duty and profoundly change our military's involvement in Iraq."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had this to say on the President's speech:

"The American people long ago lost faith in the president's leadership of the war in Iraq because his rhetoric has never matched the reality on the ground. The American people reject the president's call for an 'enduring relationship' with Iraq that is based on leaving our troops in the middle of a deadly civil war for at least 10 years. The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment and the president's plan for an endless war."

Sen. Hillary Clinton responded to the President stating:

"What the president told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little, too late and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home."

Sen. Barack Obama reiterated something I said earlier, saying:

"What this is, is that we have run out of troops. We can't sustain the surge, and we are now going back to the same levels of troops that we had nine months ago."

The democrats are doing the right thing: standing up for America's safety and America's men and women in uniform. They are fighting for what the country wants, a safe end to the War in Iraq, and God bless them for that.

Stay the Course says the President.....Again

I believe one headline can sum up President Bush's prime-time speech tonight: Stay the Course. Thats all the President offered. I'm so tired of hearing the same thing over and over again out of this administration. We need a changed strategy in Iraq that actually works to keep America safe. We need to be worrying about al Qaeda, not an Iraqi civil war. Our brave men and women join the services to do just that, serve their country, not to be a police force for a foreign nation.

The President's speech focused for a large part on the "success" in Anbar province. Yet the President also briefly mentioned a Sunni Sheik that was killed by a roadside bomb in Anbar. So I ask the President: which is it, is there success in Anbar or not? And if so, why are people, like the Sunni Sheik, being killed there everyday? That surely doesn't sound like "success" to me. And on a quick side note, did I hear Bush correctly when he said the United States was one of 37 countries fighting the War on Terrorism in Iraq? I would like to hear the President name those 36 other countries, because I surely can't think of them.

I pray the American people aren't fooled

Well President Bush has set himself to be the hero tonight we he will announce "his plan" to withdraw 30,000 troops from Iraq next year. I hope the American people don't fall for this. Those 30,000 troops were scheduled to come home anyway. We were told that months ago by the Pentagon, but the President is going to make it appear that he is the one withdrawing troops.

It is no doubt a publicity stunt in order to raise support for this war and keep Senate Republicans on his side. It's just sad that this war is becoming all about politics. It shouldn't be about the President trying to save face or look strong. It's about the safety of our troops and the safety of the United States of America. 160,000 troops are now needlessly in harm's way and not even Gen. Petraeus can say the Iraq War benefits the U.S. You want to know why?---because it doesn't! By not taking the fight to al-Qaeda and bin Laden, America is less safe because of this war.

30,000 troops is not enough to withdraw. All that does is put us back to pre-surge troop levels. We need a much greater number of troops out of Iraq, with a small force taking the fight to al-Qaeda. What the president is trying to do is like a thief taking $100 from you, and then a few months later giving it back. It means nothing. The troops were coming home anyway and now the President is trying to get political gain out of it. Again I say, I hope the American people see right through this and continue to support what is right for this country----ending the Iraq War.

Clinton widening lead over Republicans; Obama falling

Many have wondered how Hillary Clinton would be able to fare against a tough Republican candidate, such as Guiliani, in a general election. The original consensus was that Clinton was too divisive and Obama would be a much stronger general election candidate than Hillary. The CNN/Research Corporation Poll, however has something different to say about that:

Hillary now beats Guiliani 50-46, up 3 points from June when she only beat him by one point, 49-48. Obama, however, has fallen when matched up with Guiliani. He now loses to Guiliani, 45 -49, while in June he only lost by 2 points, 46-48. Hillary has also greatly widened her lead over Fred Thompson, now 55-42, when back in June it was only 50-46. Obama and Thompson have stayed basically at a stand still, with it being 52-40 in favor of Obama in June, while now it is 53-41, still in favor of Obama.

This goes along with what I've been saying. Hillary is widening her appeal. The fact is, like her personally or not, she is the candidate who is most in touch with the American people as far as her ideas and policies are concerned. She, unlike many would suggest, is not some wacky liberal. She is indeed very mainstream and centrist in her views. Once people get to see the real Hillary, they like her more and more. No longer are they seeing what the GOP conservatives what them to see of her; they are seeing the truth.

This poll also shows something I've pointed out. Obama's inexperience is catching up to him. He several "slip-ups" in recent months have hurt him. Americans are looking for a leader, someone who has the experience to make the change happen. And I think, as the latest polls are beginning to show, Americans are turning towards Hillary to make that change and lead this country into the future.

The absolute saddest statement I have ever heard

The questioning of Gen. David Petraeus continued today, and perhaps the most telling question was asked when Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus, "Does the Iraq War make America safer?" In what I can only describe as a statement that deeply upset me, Petraeus responded by saying, "I don't know".

When the man in charge of the military in Iraq says that he isn't sure that the sacrifice of our men and women is worth it for America, it is a problem. This statement is the turning point for the Iraq War debate. No longer is it just us Democrats saying this war is not helping America, it is also Gen. Petraeus, who was put in charge by George Bush. How the hell can we ask young men and women to put their lives on the line if there is no benefit for this country? It's sickening that the General is saying this. Can you imagine how the troops in WWII would have felt if Gen. Eisenhower, on D-Day, told them that he didn't know if their sacrifice was going to benefit America. Its absolutely absurd, it's proof this war must end and end soon.

I beg anybody, regardless of political party, to tell me its okay to send troops to war if that war isn't going to make America safer. There is a right and wrong, and the distinction has finally been made, not by a "crazy liberal", but by Commander of military forces in Iraq, that this war is wrong!

The Real Story of the Iraq War(a special editorial by John Lucia)

General Petraeus and our ambassador to Iraq are scheduled to speak before committees of congress all this weak concerning the war in Iraq. Congress would do well to ask questions concerning the real story about the Iraq war and not get caught up in Petraeus' report.

The real story is the price being paid by our men and women in uniform, the Iraqi people and the country itself over WMD that did not exist. The neocons, who made up the President's Iraqi policy group, said the war would be a cake walk. They care nothing about our men and women in uniform fighting this war. Over 2 million Iraqi's have fled the country; utilities are a hit and a miss for the people and over 60% of Iraqi professional people have left the country. That's lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers, etc. Think of what that is costing the people and the country. The people of Iraq are less safe today than they were prior to the invasion and occupation. Iraq and the region has been destabilized. The reckless decision of President Bush to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq and his failure to have a plan to deal with the situation that has follows has placed our troops in jeopardy and in the middle of a civil war. All the President can offer is to pass the problem on to the next President.

Now when the President tells Iran to stop sending people and munitions to Iraq, Iran says we did not start a war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist, you did; we do not occupy Iraq, you do with 160,000 troops; this is not your part of the world, it is ours. This is the sad situation that our men and women in uniform are exposed to.

Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy two leaders who wore the uniform of their country during their generations war and served in combat would never have committed our country and our men and women in uniform to an unnecessary war and occupation of a foreign country over WMD that did not exist.

This is the real story of the war in Iraq that is now well into its fifth year. Neither the President nor those who continue to support the war can articulate how it will end nor how many more lives will be lost in order to "win".

Biden: Petraeus is "Dead flat wrong"

Sen. Joe Biden, a democratic presidential contender and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has just returned home from a visit to Iraq and appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to give us his take on the situation:

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence...This president has no plan — how to win and how to leave...I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out."

When asked about the upcoming questioning of Gen. David Petraeus, Biden stated:

"I really respect him, but I think he's dead flat wrong."

Biden stressed what I and many others have been saying, "there is no military solution." He said that while Petraeus is not going to directly lie in his report, he, as the President, will miss the point. Biden stressed that the only way to get a handle on the chaos in Iraq is to focus on a political solution by creating more local control.

Former presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator, John Kerry, made an appearance on ABC's This Week and gave us his assessment of the Iraq War:

"The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month...I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them, but none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."

I agree with what both men said, this war can not be won militarily. We've seen it for the past 5 years, the military secures an area by force, but 30 minutes after they move on to another area, that area is back to the way it was before the military intervened. We can't keep our troops there forever and its foolish to put our troops in harm's way just so a small section of Iraq can be safe for a half an hour. There must be a long term solution. There is a civil war in Iraq, between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and to some extent, the Kurds. Reconciliation between the three warring factions is the only answer to the situation. I hope Democrats in Congress are able to persuade enough Republicans to jump ship, so this war can be brought to a SAFE end. Cutting off the money for the troops is not the answer, as it would just cause more unnecessary deaths. Congress needs 67 votes, that is the only way to end this war until 2008, when hopefully, a Democrat will win the White House.

CHARACTER: George W. Bush's Achilles Heel(a special editorial by John Lucia)

During the 2000 Presidential election, Mr. Bush and the people who ran his campaign made a determined effort to question the character of V.P. Al Gore. During one of the debates, even moderator Jim Lehrer promoted the republican talking point and questioned Mr. Gore about his character. Mr. Lehrer never asked Mr. Bush about his own character however.

President Bush has been described by his political operatives as a strong leader. That is the image they try to project. Others say Mr. Bush is stubborn and sticks to his word. The facts say neither of those descriptions are accurate. Lets examine the facts because it is the President who has the character problem.

After the tragic events of 9-11 the President tried to plant the seed in the American peoples mind that Saddam and Iraq played a hand in that attack even though he knew that was false. A President with character would never have done that, but Mr. Bush was trying to lay the ground work for the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist.

During the debates of the 2004 election, Mr. Bush was asked by one of the people in attendance to name 3 mistakes he made as President. In fact he could not think of any mistakes. He could not and still can not bring himself to admit his many mistakes. He has yet to admit to any mistakes concerning the war in Iraq. Instead he says "we" made mistakes but never "I" made mistakes. This is a trait of a small person who can't accept responsibility. The buck stops at the desk of a strong leader who has character, but not on this President's desk.

A strong leader with character would never have committed our nation and our men and women in uniform to a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist; a strong leader with character would never have changed his reasons for going to war in Iraq after WMD were not found; a strong leader with character would never have told the American people that Iraq was the center of the war on terror when Bin Laden and Al Queda were in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A strong leader with character would not change the reasons over and over about why we are still in Iraq well into the fifth year of war and occupation; a strong leader with character would not try to brand Veterans who served their country as not supporting our troops when they disagreed with how Bush has conducted the war; A strong leader with character would never say the war in Iraq was justified when the reasons given for starting the war proved to be false. The war itself has proved to be an unnecessary war; a strong leader with character would not have misled the people over and over again throughout his presidency.

A strong leader with character would never tell our enemies to "bring it on" against America and put our men and women in uniform at risk; a strong leader with character would not be reckless in his foreign policy decisions; a strong leader with character would not make self serving statements to justify his decisions that have be proven wrong; a strong leader with character would not walk away from a war he started to leave it to his successor to finish. (The President has already told the people at a news conference over a year ago that the next President would have to deal with the war.)

A strong leader with character would pursue policies that bring our people and nation together instead of division. The President not only fails the character test of a strong leader, but he fails the test of being able to carry the moral mantle of world leadership.

The spin machine of this administration and Karl Rove can not change the facts. Now Mr. Rove has left the administration to write a book and rewrite the history of Mr. Bush's presidency but it will never wash.

I wonder if Jim Lehrer has learned a lesson about "character" in the last several years. Journalist who push politician's talking points would do their profession a favor if they stick to reporting the facts.

A message for those Republicans praying for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee:

From Karl Rove to GOP strategists, Republicans have made one thing clear: They want Hillary Clinton in the 2008 general election. From being called "fatally flawed" to someone who could "never win", Hillary has been criticized by members of the GOP. Republicans do have a reason for doing this: if republicans attack Hillary, it makes democrats want to vote for her even more in the primaries. It is obvious the GOP want Clinton to win the nomination so that whomever the Republican nominee is can have a greatly improved chance of winning the general election. While I'm not saying she is the perfect candidate, Republicans should not underestimate her.

Hillary Clinton is, out of all the democratic candidates, the most moderate. Her views are in line with those of the American people: she wants to safely bring the Iraq War to an end, she wants affordable healthcare for all, she wants to fight terrorism and keep America safe, she wants to protect the environment and combat Global Warming,etc. I think former President Bill Clinton said it best when he was asked about Hillary's widespread appeal. He talked about how Republicans had villainized her and made her to be someone is not. He cited how when people, regardless of party affiliation, get to know Hillary, they like her. She is very popular in upstate New York, a heavily Republican area. She was shown by a recent poll to be the favorite presidential candidate by people in Arkansas, a state that has been leaning Republican. It shows that once people get to see the real Hillary and get to hear her real positions, they like her. In 2008, the American people aren't going to vote against Hillary just because her name is Clinton. People know that too much is at stake in this election to go blindly to the polls on election day. Every candidate will be intensely scrutinized and the American people will choose the candidate who best fights for what they want. And, in my honest opinion, that person is Hillary Clinton.

Fred Thompson's latest statements

As Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson hit the campaign trail in Iowa on Thursday and Friday, he had some very interesting comments that I strongly disagree with:

On the threat of Osama bin-Laden:
"Bin Laden being in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan is not as important...as he is more symbolism than anything else...If he disappeared tomorrow we still have this problem. If Iraq disappeared tomorrow, we'd still have this problem. "

On the U.S. turning its attention from finding bin-Laden to Iraq:
"Saddam Hussein was on the cusp of having defeated the United Nations and the free world and the United States. He had certainly had weapons of mass destruction."

Both of these statements are absurd. Bin Laden is much more than symbolism. He is the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He is the leader of al-Qaeda. Surely killing bin Laden would not end terrorism over night, but it would be a huge step. Millions of people who wish death to every American would have lost their leader. The spirit of the terrorist movement would be crushed and recruiting for al-Qaeda missions would be much harder, as many joined al-Qaeda just because of their wish to follow bin Laden. Fred makes it sound as if it does not matter whether we catch bin Laden or not. But it does matter. Its imperative that we fight al-Qaeda and we stop them from attacking the U.S. again.

And for Fred to say that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having defeated the free world is ridiculous. The U.S. proved that we could topple Saddam's regime in a matter of weeks. Iraq was absolutely no threat to the U.S. Fred claims that Iraq did have WMDs, but that has been proven a million times to be a lie. Iraq had zero WMDs. By saying that they did is nothing more than furthering the lie put forth by the Bush administration for the start of this war. Politicians need to stop lying to the American people. The truth needs to be told: Iraq had no WMDs, they were in no way involved with 9/11, al-Qaeda was not there before the U.S. invaded, Iraq was no threat to the U.S., and most importantly, the Iraq war was completely unnecessary and it does not benefit the U.S. to be in the middle of Iraq's own civil war.

Fred Thompson is going to lose support fast if he can't get his facts straight. I am sick of some GOP members lying to the American people simply to get elected. Lies got us into the mess in Iraq and lies are the reason we have not yet found bin Laden. The truth is what Americans' want and need. The truth is what will prevail in '08 and the truth is what will keep America safe.

Will Fred Thompson make an impact?

Sen. Fred Thompson announced Wednesday night on Jay Leno that he will indeed be running as a Republican for the Presidency in '08. He joins an already crowded Republican field in his hope to be nominee. The question that many are asking is how big of an impact on this race will Thompson have on the race and my answer is not much.

The only reason Thompson even has a good reason to enter this race is because polls show that Republicans are dissatisfied with their choices, but I don't think Thompson adds anything thats not already there. I suppose some expect Thompson to be the Reagan of the 21st century, but I just don't see it. Reagan had a charisma about him that Fred lacks. While he can be charming at times, Thompson fails to live up to expectations for me. He was supposed to be this rock-star candidate, but he appeared so subdued on Leno. In his campaign launch video, he looks like an 80 year old man rambling on and on while bobbing his head every second or two. When I hear him speak, he fails to energize the room because of his own lack of enthusiasm. He comes off as if he just doesn't care, as if he's going to walk in the race and win it without having to work. He waits to officially enter the race at least 6 months after everyone else already did. He has not participated in one debate and has yet to take a stance on they key issues facing our country. If his only claim to fame is that he is a "consistent conservative", its not going to be enough. Huckabee is more of a conservative than Fred ever was and is far more charismatic, yet hasn't done too well in national polls. If Republicans wanted a strict conservative, they already have one, they want the entire package, whatever that might be.

Then there is the theory of many in the media that Thompson is going to completely unravel Mitt Romney's campaign. I couldn't disagree more. Thompson isn't just going to walk in and all of a sudden get all of Romney's support in the two key states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney has spent months in those states campaigning, not to mention millions of dollars. Fred doesn't have months to campaign or millions to spend. Thompson's biggest chance to win the nomination will come if he can do a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, I sincerely believe Romney will win both states, and then goes on to win southern states such as South Carolina. I could see a scenario happening where Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Utah, Michigan, and a few other Northeastern states. Thompson captures the south. Guiliani wins more liberal states such as Florida and California. Then you basically have a three way happening and someone would have to do the math to see who that would benefit the most.

Bottom line is I don't think your going to see Thompson live up to the hype. I don't think he's going to unravel Mitt Romney's campaign and I don't expect him to get the nomination. Right now he's getting all the attention because he's a new face, but in a couple of weeks, he'll just be another Republican candidate. I suppose its me vs. the media on this issue, but I do not believe Thompson will have a huge impact on this race at all. He will soon fade into the background.

Bin-Laden to speak soon

There is breaking news today that Osama bin-Laden, the man behind the 9/11 terror attacks, will be releasing a new web video addressing the U.S. within the next 72 hours. This will be the first time bin-Laden has been seen on video in nearly three years. Here's my take on this disturbing piece of news:

The GOP is going to try everything to use this to their advantage. They are once again going to try to instill fear in Americans and lie by saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to keep this nation safe. But I would hope Americans remember, its been six years after 9/11 and we are not even close to finding and killing bin-Laden. And why? Because George Bush lied to the Congress, lied to Americans, and lied to the world and got us into Iraq. By going needlessly into Iraq, we turned our focus from fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and onto Iraq. This allowed bin-Laden and other al-Qaeda members to escape. Now, the latest reports show that since we shifted out attention away from fighting terrorism, al-Qaeda has been able to regroup and regain strength, possibly even stronger than pre-9/11. This should be seen as a warning to those who think republicans can handle national security. They are the ones who let bin-Laden slip through their finger-tips. I would be willing to bet, that if we didn't get into Iraq, we would have found bin-Laden by now and he would be dead. We would have drastically demolished al-Qaeda and therefore greatly decreased the chance of a terrorist attack on our great country. I hope that the American people see this and, in the next election, vote for leaders who want to protect America and not those who want to continue avoiding the problem.

Republican Debate(a special editorial by John Lucia)

With the exception of Ron Paul, one has to feel like President Bush wrote the comments for the Republican candidates. Like Bush, they tried to sound tough, even Chris Wallace tried, but no one had a answer to Ron Paul when he said the same people who got us into this war and those who still support the war were wrong about everything that has happened in Iraq.

The word "honor" was used a number of times to describe how this war over WMD that did not exist should end. But well into the fifth year of war in Iraq no one can tell the american people how it will end or when or what will be the outcome.

Our men and women in uniform serve with honor and commit themselves to the ultimate sacrifice. They go where the President and Commander in Chief tells them to go, they do their jobs well, without complaint and serve their country. They do this even if a President commits them to an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist. Our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq completed their mission over three years ago when no WMD were found and when Saddam was no longer a factor in Iraq. Yet, into the fifth year of this war those who want to keep it going have failed to articulate their definition of victory in Iraq. Our men and women in uniform have already been victorious and have served with "honor,courage and commitment." If any of those candidates don't think our troops can leave with "honor" now, they are the ones who are without "honor." Does any american truly believe that our wounded who are home from Iraq and trying to put their life back together and those who gave their life for their country did not serve with "honor."

A few of the candidates were of prime age (put up on the TV screen) during their generations war but never wore the uniform of their country. Yet they adopted the so called tough talk of some people in this administration who also either never wore the uniform of their country during their generations war or joined the safety of the guard so they would not be called to active duty. In other words they cut and ran. They try to talk and act tough to make up for their own inadequacy.

The debate indicated that what the GOP badly needs is a Dwight Eisenhower to lead them once again. I do not think the american people are ready to elect a republican president who wants to continue the war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist well into the future.

It is ironic that no republican candidate for President can explain how a war over WMD that did not exist could turn into the sad situation it has become and our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price for that reckless decision. And to think that some of those candidates say our troops can't come home with "honor" until the war is extended with no end in sight and with out an explanation as to how to end the war. "Ike" would never look upon these candidates with pride.

Quick GOP debate wrap-up

Well I just got done watching a grueling hour and a half of what Fox News calls a debate. First off, I was hoping for a little less bias than usual, but I'm afraid we may have gotten more than usual. Ron Paul got hammered by the questioners, who had an obvious sense of disgust in their speech when talking with Congressman Paul. At the same time, good-ol Fox conservatives and even Rudy Guiliani were allowed to slide and dodge the questions. Paul got mis-quoted, stopped in the middle of his sentences, and was even had it implied to him that he supported al-Qaeda by one of the panelists. On top of all that, everytime Paul gave a response, there was a clear sound of laughter in the background. I would hope it wasn't the other candidates or Fox News personality, but whomever was laughing, must have been pretty damn close to a microphone. But anyway....here is a quick, candidate-by-candidate analysis:

-Rudy Guiliani: a horrible showing for someone who is supposed to be the front-runner. This man answers every question the same: he laundry lists what he did as Mayor. In a president, Americans need someone who will talk about what they bring to the table. I could have been up there listing what Rudy did and didn't do as Mayor. I want to know what he WILL do as President, not what he DID do as Mayor.

-John McCain: McCain had a good night. I thought his passion showed and he looked and sounded the most presidential. Whether or not this is going to help him rebound after a disappointing summer, we'll just have to wait and see, but, overall, he had a definite connection with the New Hampshire audience and I would be willing to bet he won himself a few more votes.

-Mitt Romney: Romney didn't answer one question clearly. He dodged every question and the commentators never followed up. By the end of this debate, I didn't know whether Romney wanted in or out of Iraq, whether he wanted a nationwide ban to abortion or not, or how he was going to deal with the immigration problems he has so often spoke out on. I'm not sure if he was flip-flopping again or what, but when I thought I had his positions figured out...well...now I'm not so sure.

-Mike Huckabee: Huckabee, as usual, came off as the most warm candidate. I thought he had an okay night. He didn't hurt himself, but yet didn't have that defining moment he could really use. He just got lost in the shuffle and, unfortunately for him, I don't think people are going to wake up tomorrow and remember Huckabee as anything more than just another candidate.

-Sam Brownback: All I have to say is that this man is a one issue candidate. Every question he got asked, he answered by blaming it on there not being enough emphasis on families. Brownback needs to be more than just a strict social conservative, he needs to be someone who is ready to lead this country and, in this day and age, you need more than just "family values" to do that.

-Duncan Hunter: Like Huckabee, Hunter will be forgotten. He should have dropped out this race a long time ago. He doesn't bring anything new or different to the discussion and as far as I'm concerned, he comes off as just wasting time.

-Tom Tancredo: He had on okay showing, maybe slightly better than last time, only because he covered some tough issues and went straight to the point. But at the same time, Tancredo fails to make an impact, and should just drop out.

-Ron Paul: I can't help but feel bad for Paul. He was bullied by Fox and still held his ground. What surprised me the most was that the audience, republican voters, had great applause for many of Paul's responses that were quite the opposite of those of main-stream republicans. Maybe there is a niche for Paul to still make an impact. Over all he did really good and did a lot to make himself appear the alternative to the "Bush-Cheney" like Republicans.

WINNERS:
-McCain
-Paul

LOSERS:
-Guiliani
-Romney

And everyone else, just stuck somewhere in between. For those who watched it, I would love to hear your thoughts!

An early look at the key swing states for '08

As we inch closer and closer to the 2008 Presidential election, most states are safe bets for Republicans or Democrats. For example the midwest votes almost entirely republican, while big states like New York and California are strongly democratic. States like these do not have a huge impact on the race, as they are considered "safe". Yet, there are key "swing" states that do not have an allegiance to either political party. These are the states that are key for any presidential candidate to win, because without winning them, you can't win the election. Here's a look at the most recent polls out of these "swing" states, pitting the Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton against Republican front-runner, Rudy Guiliani:

-Arkansas: Clinton leads Guiliani 55-37
-Colorado: Guiliani leads Clinton 50-40
-Florida: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-44
-Iowa: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-41
-Michigan: Clinton leads Guiliani: 49-40
-Minnesota: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-41
-Missouri: Clinton leads Guiliani: 46-43
-Nevada: Guiliani leads Clinton: 46-38
-New Hampshire: Clinton leads Guiliani: 44-40
-New Mexico: Clinton leads Guiliani: 50-44
-Ohio: tied at 44%
-Oregon: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-41
-Pennsylvania: Clinton leads Guiliani: 45-44
-West Virginia: Clinton leads Guiliani: 42-36
-Wisconsin: Clinton leads Guiliani: 47-46

As seen, Hillary Clinton is leading in just about all swing states. If the election was held today, the electoral vote would go: 313(Clinton) to 225(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Guiliani OR 333(Clinton) to 205(Guiliani) if Ohio went for Clinton. Regardless of Ohio, if current polling is accurate on election day, Clinton will have a relatively easy victory as only 270 electoral votes are needed. Looking at these poll numbers, Clinton's campaign should be very happy, because just 2 months ago, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio all went by at least 5% in polls to Guiliani. Now Clinton either leads or is tied in those key states. Also interesting to note is Clinton leading in more conservative states such as Missouri and West Virginia. If these numbers hold up, expect to see a huge democrat victory in '08, not just for the presidency, but also in the House and Senate.

Bush already planning post-presidency career

Robert Draper's new book, Dead Certain, is, in a way, a biography of the the Bush years. It takes a in-depth look into the current administration, and while there are certainly many fascinating tidbits of information from Bush, Rove and others, one statement really stood out from the rest. Here is the president's plans after he leaves the White House:

"I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers. I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 thousand dollars per speech...Clinton's making a lot of money."

Is it just me or does that completely rub you the wrong way? We are in the middle of a war where American lives are being lost. There are thousands of uninsured Americans who can't even begin to take proper care of themselves or their children because they can't afford healthcare. There are hard-working young men and women who can't afford to go to college because of a terribly low minimum wage. And through all of these issues, the one thing the president wants to talk is the money he wants to make when he leaves office.

Before he was elected president, Bush was worth an estimated $21 million and makes over $400,000 a year as president. I can't even imagine how our soldiers would feel hearing this; that while they're putting their lives at risk, the commander-in-chief is thinking about ways he can make more money. Just think how our soldiers would feel if their field commanders told them, "hey, I just can not wait to get out of here and start making me some money." Soldiers would be disgusted if their commander, whose only thought should be how to keep them safe and help them to achieve their mission, was talking about leaving them and making money. I guess I just feel that there is a huge level of inappropriateness. It just sickens me to think that the man who is leading our country would rather talk about how's he's going to make money instead of talking about how he is going to make this country a better place for its citizens, both while and after he's president.

Hillary Clinton: Change through Experience

In a speech Sunday in New Hampshire, New York Senator and democratic presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, outlined her "four big goals" as president:

1) "restore America's standing in the world"
2) "rebuild America's middle class and the economy to support it"
3) "reform our government"
4) "I want to be able to say to you as your president, ‘Our children are well'"

Also in her speech this past weekend, Sen. Clinton praised the leadership abilities of F.D.R. and Lyndon Johnson and described herself as an alliance builder. She also addressed the issue of "change", saying,

"From my time in the White House and in the Senate, I learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution." She again brought up Johnson and Roosevelt saying, "They got big things done because they knew it wasn’t just about the dream, it’s about the results. I want to work within the system; you can’t pretend the system doesn’t exist. Some people think you should have to choose between change and experience, well, with me, you don’t have to choose. I have spent my entire life fighting for change. Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen.

Sen. Clinton has earned praise from Republican senators for working with them on legislation and her willingness to compromise. In her presidency, Clinton stated she would use this approach of compromise to prevent the kind of political divide we see today. She stressed how both political parties can find common ground and work together to get things accomplished. She also made it clear, however, that while she wants to work with Republicans, she would do it while still upholding values important to the American people, such as Social Security and women's rights, saying:

“You have to know when to stick to your principles and fight and yet know when to make principled compromises.”

It should also be important to note, that in her speech, Clinton announced she would reveal her universal healthcare plan in two weeks.

In a very powerful speech, Hillary has reiterated something I feel is very important, change is nothing without the desire and will and experience to implement it. Sen. Barack Obama throws the word change around a lot, but, its one thing to talk about change, its another to bring it about. Throughout her years as a senator, Clinton has demonstrated strong leadership and is well known for her willingness to work with all political parties for the good of the American people. Barack has not shown that type of leadership. For the 2 years he's been in the Senate, he has very little to show for it. He has not lead on any important issues and without great leadership, change is impossible. I urge the voters to think about that. Bringing about change is going to take a lot more than just talking about it, it's going to take hard work and leadership. Thats what separates Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama----the experience to make change happen.

"What the U.S. military wants" us to see.

Katie Couric is currently reporting from Iraq. This morning she was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, and when asked about the success of the surge, she had this to say:

"And so, you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course, that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see, so you have to keep that in mind as well."

Well at least Couric is trying to get the facts straight--- she only gets to see what the military lets her see, and we all know the military isn't going to lead her to an area plagued by chaos. It is a serious problem that the military can't be fully truthful, it is, in a way, propaganda to keep this war going. The truth needs to come out: while there is some progress in some places, the overall situation in Iraq is worsening. Political and militant reconciliation between Iraqis seems less and less likely every day. Each day that we focus on trying to keep peace between warring factions, is a day that we are not intensely fighting al-Qaeda somewhere else. And basic utilities, such as running water and electricity, are no where to be seen for the Iraqi civilians because of war.

Americans need to get the whole truth, the entire picture, not just what the military wants us to see. If the media isn't allowed to get footage of the chaos, then they should be straight-forward in saying, "What you see is what we were allowed to see, we were not allowed to get into areas where conditions are much worse than these." We were lied into getting into this war, lets make sure we aren't lied to in thinking we should stay.

The Failures of Television Journalism (a special editorial by John Lucia)

There are over 500 members of Congress elected by the people, yet it is only a small number of them that appear on television and the American people only get to hear their views on issues facing the country. Our people deserve to hear from other members of Congress and have the benefit of their views as well.

Guests like Senator McCain, Newt Gingrich etc., are on T.V. over and over again and give out the same hype and failed messages. There are no fresh thoughts or ideas coming forth. It is no wonder we never solve any problems. Television needs to open up their guest list to other members of Congress to broaden the debate. Other members of Congress should be extended that opportunity and the people should get to hear what they have to say.

One would think the networks and their journalists would have learned a lesson after they paraded the same people over and over again on their shows during the run up to war in Iraq and who told the people over and over again we had to go to war in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Now well into the fifth year of this war the same people are once more on the shows telling the people we have to stay in Iraq over WMD that did not exist. The American people have had enough of that spin.

George Bush has not balanced one Federal Budget since he has been in office and has given the country record federal deficits, yet I do not recall seeing Senator Kent Conrad on any shows informing the people just how serious the problem is. Senator Conrad is an expert on the federal budget and the networks know that. But because Senator Conrad is not a high profile Senator, the people are fed Mr. Bush's spin and denied Senator Conrad's knowledge on the subject matter. Interest paid on the national debt for fiscal year ending September 2006 was $406 billion. Senator Conrad could explain what that money could have been used for if Republican's balanced the budget instead of wasting that money on interest payments.

Mr. Scot Ritter, a U.N. inspector in Iraq, said over and over again during the build up to war in Iraq, that Iraq possessed no WMD. The networks disregarded his statements and proceeded to promote Iraq having WMD on their own accord, following the administration's lead. The war and our own inspectors who combed Iraq for over a year during the war proved Mr. Bush and the networks wrong and Mr. Ritter right. It is noticeable that Mr. Ritter has not been a guest on any television shows(to my knowledge) since it was discovered that Iraq had no WMD.

Programs like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, The Situation Room, Tucker, Hardball and others could acquire some respectability if they broaden their guests beyond the usual members of Congress who offer the same old spin on the issues. I for one would like to know what others think and why they think that. The bottom line is that television and journalist fail to meet their obligation of pursuing the facts and having an honest debate on the issues.

Craig gone, but why not Vitter?

Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho announced today that he is resigning from the Senate after being involved in a gay bathroom sex scandal. His resignation came after much pressure from his own party to resign. But as this week went by and I saw more and more GOP politicians turn against Craig and push for his resignation, I began to wonder, why wasn't there any pressure from the GOP on Sen. David Vitter to resign after his sex scandal earlier this summer.

I hate to think it, but the first and most likely reason is because Craig was involved in a "gay" scandal, while Vitter's was with a female prostitute. I can't help but feel that if Craig was involved in a scandal with a woman, he wouldn't have had to resign. Both men were hypocrites, Craig for voting against civil unions, against gays serving their country in the military, and against gay rights, and Vitter, for running his campaign on family values and attacking Bill Clinton, while he himself was involved in cheating on his wife. Both men's actions were more than likely illegal: Craig for attempting to have sex in a men's restroom and Vitter for paying for sex, whether the DC Madam calls herself a prostitute or not. The only conceivable difference is that Craig was outed as a homosexual while Vitter was just with a woman. I'm upset the media has not called more attention to this even further anti-gay view of the GOP. If Craig had to resign, then the Republican Party should have encouraged Vitter to do the same.

Hill and Bill's Big Week

I've just received an e-mail from the Hillary for President campaign informing me that Hillary and Bill Clinton have a busy week coming up:

September 4: Hillary on Ellen
September 4: Bill Clinton on Oprah
September 4: Bill Clinton on Letterman
September 5: Bill Clinton on Larry King

The one that stands out to me is that Hillary Clinton has been booked as the first guest on Ellen for her new season. This is a huge opportunity for Hillary to reach out to a new group of people, as I'm pretty sure Ellen viewers aren't paying that much close attention to the 2008 election.

Just this past Thursday, Hillary was on Letterman and I must say she was hilarious. She came off as funny and warm and charming and the audience reaction was great. It is on shows like this that Hillary can go on and come off as warm and really change people's opinions on her.

And of course having Bill Clinton on separate shows from her can also be a real boost to her campaign. He is the master of captivating an audience and winning them over. It will be interesting to see how he and Oprah interact, as Oprah is an outspoken Obama supporter. Bill on Letterman should also be entertaining and Larry King will give us a much more serious interview of Bill Clinton than the others.

This week is the chance for Hillary to change people's opinions on her. A good showing on Ellen will help her make a lasting appeal to the stay-at-home mom demographic. Hillary has come off as so much more relaxed lately and, as on Letterman, she can show that she truly does have a great sense of humor. I know for one I'll be setting the Tivo to watch!

The Burden of the 44th President (a special editorial by John Lucia)

The next President will face major tasks and the voting public will have to ask themselves who is the person that is best qualified to be the next President. Following is a list of issues that will have to be faced and acted upon, although the list is not in any order nor is it a complete list. The next President will have to:

1) Keep the U.S. safe from terrorist attacks by recognizing the true threat and having a plan that deals realistically with the cause and the threat. Remember the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil happened on Mr. Bush's watch while he was trying to talk tough. "Tough talk" has no effect on terrorists who are willing to die in their attacks on America. The tragic events of 9/11 proved that.

2) Rebuild our armed forces and reserves which have been depleted under the current President's failed policy in Iraq. We are losing recruits and our people on active duty because of an unnecessary war which has discouraged new recruits to join the active and reserves in numbers necessary for our National Security.

3) Balance the Federal Budget once again, so trillions of dollars in interest being paid on the national debt can be used for needy purposes. The last 3 Republican Presidents failed to balance one budget in the 20 years they served in office. Instead they presided over 20 years of record deficits. The present term of George W. Bush is included in those 20 years as he has already stated he will not balance and federal budget before he leaves office in 18 months.

4) Act tough when and where it counts instead of trying to talk tough. Can any one really remember when any of our enemies paid any attention to so called tough talk?

5) Once again reclaim and carry the moral mantle of world leadership and work with our friends to accomplish those things that will make the world a better place for our children.

6) Be willing to take on the challenge of solving those problems that have been around for so long and never acted upon. President Kennedy once said our problems are man made, therefore they can be solved by man.

7) Realize that every country has the right to self government and that the U.S. will not interfere if our security and national interest is not at risk.

8) Defend our country and national interest when need be but at the same time have the wisdom, a policy and a working plan, to know when a threat is real or suspect.

9) Lead by deed and action and restore civility in our debates and working relationships. One who can once again promote the arts and science that will encourage society to embrace the highest standard of humankind.

10) A President who will stand up to the leaders of Israel and the PLO and say to both enough is enough. Both sides kill innocent men, women and children in the name of retaliation and then shrug and say those things just happen in war.

11) A President who will stand up and say abortion is legal in the U.S. and elected officials should not engage in the politics of division in order to secure votes.

12) A President who will bring the war and occupation in Iraq to an end. Do what is necessary to have the U.N. and nations of the middle east work with Iraq to have a stable government and withdraw our troops. No one should accept the hype that a U.S. withdrawal would cause a calamity. If that is the only answer the most powerful military and economic country in the world has to offer, God help us all. If the U.S. can not withdraw from Iraq in a responsible way that will protect our troops and the Iraqi people then we don't belong there in the first place. The only answer the people have who want to keep this war going is for the U.S. to stay in Iraq for ever. That would be tragic.