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.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
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?
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?
Monday, September 17, 2007
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.
"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.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
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.
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.
"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.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
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.
"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.
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.
Friday, September 14, 2007
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.
-----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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)