The news networks, their hosts and their guest are having a field day concerning the subject matter since it became public. This writer has followed the coverage which borders on comedy. The networks/hosts/guest, especially if the guest also represents the news media all follow the same pattern
(A) They are put out that Mrs. Clinton has chosen her own time line to address the subject instead of the networks time line. (B) Her delayed answer will give republicans a reason to attack her. (that is really comical) (C) She has damaged her campaign for President. (D) She may have violated the law. (E) Its typical of the Clintons. (this writer does not remember President Clinton being Secretary of State. (F) She used private account email to conduct State business to avoid transparency. (G) And a host of other allegations.
The networks and their hosts are chapped because Mrs. Clinton has not yet formally announced she will be a candidate for the democratic Presidential nomination. As a result she has been silent and out of the public's eye. That has left the networks only the republican candidates to cover and they have been in the news frequently. Its tough for the networks to report on them because the republican candidates are saying the same thing that Newt Gingrich was saying 30 years ago. Some things never change.
The real reason the networks want Mrs. Clinton to speak on the emails is they have too much air time to fill up and once she speaks they will be talking about the matter until election day. The networks and the republicans will keep this story alive no matter what. Fox news has already named it a scandal when they have no idea what the word means. If they did they would have called O'Reilly's repeated lies a scandal.
The bottom line on Mrs. Clinton's personal emails at State is as follows: Did her personal emails violate any federal laws or regulations and if so to what extent. Will she be able to articulate a sound reason for maintaining a personal email file instead of using State's email system The American people will be the judge on whether this issue will affect Mrs. Clinton's chances of becoming President if she decides to run. The networks would like to make that decision for the people.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
The Iraq War, Al Queda In Iraq And ISIL
Twelve years ago this month in 2003 President George W. Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist. And today, Iraq and its people are worse off than they were prior to the invasion. The Middle East, including Iraq has been destabilized, suicide bombings are still a regular occurance by terrorists and other groups entering the country. Saddam never let that happen while he ruled.
The war created Al Queda in Iraq who inflicted most of the damage on U.S. troops. They did what Saddam and his military could not do despite President Bush telling the world Saddam and his military was a danger to the security of the U.S. and its people. The President announced "mission accomplished" 3 months after the invasion and 12 years later the mission has yet to be accomplished and the invasion and death of Saddam did not stabilize Iraq nor was the U.S. welcomed as liberators like V.P. Chaney said would happen.
ISIL is a part of Al Queda with the same goal Bin Laden wanted to achieve, that is to see the middle east as an Islamic state. The growth of ISIL like the creation of Al Queda in Iraq would never have been possible in Iraq with Saddam in office. The war gave both groups the opportunity to grow and spread their terror. Yet we still have those in congress who want to see President Obama make the same mistake and have American troops once again have an active combat role in Iraq and else where in the middle east.
Our men and women in uniform and their family have paid a huge price with multiple deployments because there is no draft. President Obama does not have to send them down that road again. So far he has been steady on the issue. The answer to a stable Iraq and middle east can only come from that part of the world where a united front comes together to destroy the threat and improve relations between all of its various factions.
The U.S. is a nation of values and should never again be so willing to commit our country to an unnecessary war where only our military is asked to make sacrifice.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
The war created Al Queda in Iraq who inflicted most of the damage on U.S. troops. They did what Saddam and his military could not do despite President Bush telling the world Saddam and his military was a danger to the security of the U.S. and its people. The President announced "mission accomplished" 3 months after the invasion and 12 years later the mission has yet to be accomplished and the invasion and death of Saddam did not stabilize Iraq nor was the U.S. welcomed as liberators like V.P. Chaney said would happen.
ISIL is a part of Al Queda with the same goal Bin Laden wanted to achieve, that is to see the middle east as an Islamic state. The growth of ISIL like the creation of Al Queda in Iraq would never have been possible in Iraq with Saddam in office. The war gave both groups the opportunity to grow and spread their terror. Yet we still have those in congress who want to see President Obama make the same mistake and have American troops once again have an active combat role in Iraq and else where in the middle east.
Our men and women in uniform and their family have paid a huge price with multiple deployments because there is no draft. President Obama does not have to send them down that road again. So far he has been steady on the issue. The answer to a stable Iraq and middle east can only come from that part of the world where a united front comes together to destroy the threat and improve relations between all of its various factions.
The U.S. is a nation of values and should never again be so willing to commit our country to an unnecessary war where only our military is asked to make sacrifice.
This commentary written by Joe Lorio
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)