2001-2008 --- A Return To A Time Of Darkness

We were taught in school that there was a time in our history's past when learning seemed to stop.  It was called "The Dark Ages."  Who ever thought history would repeat itself in the 21st century?  The past seven and half years has been a repeat for our leaders who have failed to learn and then stopped learning from their mistakes altogether.

 

The present Dark Age covers a broad spectrum and I will discuss two of them in this post that came to light just in the last few days.  Nothing needs to be said about Iraq because the problem is so obvious.  Now it is Afghanistan and Iran.

 

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Afghanistan and said more foreign fighters including al Qaeda militants are operating in Pakistan's tribal areas then in the past and they are flowing into Afghanistan more freely this year compared to last.  Attacks in Eastern Afghanistan where American forces operate along the border with Pakistan are up 40% this year.  June was the deadliest month for U.S. and NATO soldiers since 2001.

 

This Dark Age of leadership goes back to our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 when we failed to seal the borders.  It was known before our invasion that the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan was a haven for training al Qaeda and the Taliban.  After the tragic events of 9-11, Mr. Bush said his administration would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them.  Not only did our leadership fail to carry out that policy with Pakistan, but seven years into the war in Afghanistan, our Chairman says the problem is still there and worse.

 

Now we have Secretary of State Condi Rice who just warned Iran that its latest launching of rockets was a provocative act and that the U.S. has the ability to counter them --- another example of this Dark Age of leadership failure where our leaders have learned nothing.  Our leadership has a policy of provocations and going along with the threats of Israel's leaders to other countries.  When leaders fail to learn, innocent people pay the price for their mistakes. 

 

Mr. Bush failed to learn that two can play the same game he tries to play.  That failure is darker than dark.  He played the game in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and went on to destabilize Iraq and the middle east.  Iran does not have a history of  invading other countries nor of launching a war against other countries.  Our own intelligence people said they stopped working to produce a nuclear weapon several years ago.  If they are in fact working to acquire such weapons, the U.S. can contain them like we did the Soviet Union for over 40 years.  We don't need a failure in leadership that will push the U.S. into yet another unnecessary war. 

 

This Dark Age of leadership and learning has put our country and its people in peril.  We see the economic repercussions for this failed leadership that touches the people's lives in almost every situation.  Russia was bogged down in Afghanistan for 10 years and then withdrew.  Our leadership furnished the Taliban weapons to fight Russia and they are now using those weapons we supplied them against our own troops.  We also supported Saddam during his invasion of Iran and ten year war.  We even gave Saddam U.S. intelligence gathered on Iran's military movements.  What has our country learned from those Dark Ages? ---Apparently, nothing.  

 

Can our nation escape this present Dark Age where our leaders have stopped learning.  Have we run out of leaders who understand what America is all about and how to use our military power wisely?  Hopefully the next President will answer those questions, in the way that they need to be answered.  

The United States And Its Future Foreign Policy

Over the past seven plus years, the American people found out the hard way how George Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster for our country.  Not only have we snubbed our long term allies, but the President has used our military power with impunity to try and force democracy on another nation.  Mr. Bush violated our past commitments of working with our allies on so many fronts and therefore the next President will have to work extra hard to turn things around.

 

The next President will have to restore America's moral mantle of world leadership.  That does not mean America needs to be the world's policeman.  It means we have to lead and show the way for our allies and foes alike.  America needs to be strong economically and militarily and reverse those policies that have not only been non-productive but that have simply failed.  Remember Bush's so called "tough talk" did not prevent the worst foreign terror attack on U.S. soil on 9-11.  We can not keep arming other nations and expect other nations not to send arms to other countries.  There is no creditability in our actions when we do that. 

 

The next President should openly work to bring Israel, India, and Pakistan to be a party to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty as the U.S. and other nuclear powers are.  America loses its leverage when it tries to pick and choose what countries can or can not have WMD without checks and balances. 

 

Our next President should speak softly and carry a big stick.  Not to push our weight around, but to show our determination to make a difference in the would for peace.  No other nation will attack America if our foreign policy carries the message that it would never be of benefit to those who harbor such thoughts.  We have no adversaries that carry the destructive power that Russia possessed during the cold war, yet they knew it would not be to their advantage to launch a Nuclear War.

 

The main threat from  WMD comes from Israel, Pakistan, and India because those countries have unstable leaders and because the U.S. has a present foreign policy that is silent on those countries' responsibilities and the threat they pose.  It is almost as if our President does not want to talk about it.  We make matters worse by threats to other countries who belong to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

 

The next President will have an opportunity to work to reverse the madness of a foreign policy run by the President and individuals who think they have the power to bully people around while not having a sound foreign policy based on American principals, values, and respect.  I'm not sure how much time the new President will have, but I know our country will have to pull together and do what ever it takes.  In the mean time, let's hope Mr. Bush does not try anything cute to make matters worse for the new administration.  

The Morning Dose---4/12

Today's Morning Dose comes from Christy Macy of the Baltimore Sun, titled, "Clinton Offers a Bold Vision for American Foreign Policy":

_____________________________________________________________

While she clearly erred in her recent description of what happened at an airport in Bosnia years ago, the incident has been blown out of proportion. As one who has worked closely with her, I can say that Senator Clinton's experience and work overseas point to something far more significant: a new direction in American foreign policy, which is in desperate need of change.

When I was on her staff, Mrs. Clinton pursued a daunting schedule of foreign trips. She addressed the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, exhorting the world's business and governmental leaders on the importance of international development as a foundation for civil society. She understood that peace in Northern Ireland depended on the engagement of citizens at the grass roots, especially women - a point she stressed in the Millennium Lecture at the University of Ireland in Galway. And she stood on the stage at the Palermo Opera House in Sicily, speaking passionately about the critical role of citizens' movements in the quest to defeat organized crime and reclaim communities.

For me, the depth of her commitment to these issues was evident not only during her moments in the spotlight. It also emerged behind the scenes, as she pushed us off the beaten track to consult people about their everyday lives and struggles. Over the years, in nearly 80 countries, these personal experiences and conversations deeply shaped her policy agenda and explain why she believes we must invest our prestige, power and dollars in human development.

One such occasion remains vivid: Mrs. Clinton's visit - up five flights of stairs - to a small women's legal clinic in Beijing. It was hot and stuffy, but the room was packed with women eager to meet with the first lady of the U.S. In a totalitarian country, where women's rights were still marginal at best, these women lawyers worked tirelessly to help others claim their rights on such issues as divorce and housing - often at some risk to themselves. They were stunned at Mrs. Clinton's knowledge of the issues they faced. After a lively discussion, one woman stood up. "You have no idea," she said, "what it means that you are here today with all of us. We will never forget this." And she began to weep.

A long drive to an isolated school in rural Morocco offered another example of Mrs. Clinton's immersion in grass-roots issues around the world. She believes that no nation can fully advance with half its population left behind.(...)

(...)What struck me about these numerous visits and conversations was Mrs. Clinton's unwavering commitment to identify and promote strategies with positive effects on people's lives. Wherever she went, she searched for concrete solutions to lift people out of poverty, create stronger communities, and bolster democratic institutions worldwide.

Mrs. Clinton has the interest, experience and credentials to reverse the incalculable damage that the Bush administration has inflicted on America's standing in the international community. We need a commander in chief who understands that American leadership depends on balancing military strength with our nation's heritage as a beacon of freedom and hope.

With Hillary, I think we get that balance - and more.

Senator McCain's Speech on Foreign Policy

Senator McCain, in what was billed as a major foreign policy speech, this week in Los Angeles made the case why his supporters should vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.  The following phrases were used by Senator McCain:

 

Calls for stronger ties with allies and cautioned that American power does not mean that we can do what we want, wherever we want, whenever we want.  The government should close Guantanamo Bay prison and work with allies to forge a new understanding on how to treat detainees.  America needs to be good stewards of our planet and urge steps to limit green house gas emissions. 

 

Those are the same positions that Democrats have long been advocating.  However, this is an election year,  so John McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush and his past support of Bush's policies.  The Senator will say anything to try and mask his blunders concerning foreign policy.  McCain was an early backer of going it alone in Iraq.  His late embrace of diplomacy is only a campaign speech.  Remember the Republican control of Congress which McCain was part of backed Bush's policies to the hilt.

 

As for his call for a new understanding on how to treat detainees, it is a mere political statement because we already have one.  It's called the Geneva Convention and America's own rules and regulations for treating detainees.  McCain has flipped flopped on this issue now for sometime.  His attitude on the Iraq war is still the same: stay the course with no end in sight and no plan or policy to define success, much less end the war.

 

Senator McCain also mentioned early in his speech President Truman's leadership in foreign policy.  Republican presidential hopefuls always talk about past Democratic presidents when they are looking for votes because those Presidents were good at developing foreign policies that worked.  One thing is for certain, President Truman would never have invaded and occupied a country over WMD that did not exist.  He would have recognized that Iraq was not a threat to our national security.  He would have also had something to say in strong words to McCain, Bush, and others who still support this unnecessary war. 

 

The Senator will be making many speeches before November in an effort to change his image and positions he has held on the war, the economy, the planet, immigration and etc., and you can be sure he will be moving closer to the Democrats' positions on those issues.  What the people need to remember is that the Republicans have made an art out of lying and the policies McCain now backs away from, are the same ones he has proudly defended for many many years in the Senate.

A Reckless Foreign Policy

George Bush's attempt to play God in Iraq and the Middle East is a prime example of a leader trying to use its military power with impunity to enforce its own warped ideology on other countries.

 

We now learn, (what people with common sense found out long ago) through a report by the Associated Press, that the Arab nations worry about Iran's increasing influence around the Region particularly in Iraq and Lebanon.  Sunni countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states fear Iran will dominate Iraq in coming years because of its influence on Iraq's Shiite politicians. 

 

The war and occupation in Iraq, over WMD that did not exist, will be entering its fifth year in March.  Prior to this war, the Arab nations knew that Saddam and Iraq held Iran in check.  This war did not only destabilized Iraq, but also the entire Middle East region.  And as I mentioned before, when this war is done, because of Bush's reckless behavior, Iran and Iraq will be close allies.

 

None of this speaks well for America, our security or the security of the Middle East.  With the balance of power shifting, Israel with its WMD, Bush's incompetence and the problems in Pakistan, another country with WMD, the whole Muslim world could blow up any minute now.  Bush's bully-mentality towards other countries has caused a great backlash against the United States and has and continues to endanger our security.  

 

Democracy was not forced on the United States; our founding fathers were responsible for that.  Democracy can not be forced on other countries like Bush thinks he has a right to do.  The terrorists who were responsible for attacking the U.S. on 9-11 still flourish and their influence is growing.  The action of Mr. Bush to start a war and occupation in Iraq, instead of action against those who attacked us on 9-11, has set the Middle East on fire.  Democracy forced on others is simply not true Democracy.  

 

The shame of all this is that our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price.  And we are still being told the surge is working, despite the fact that the reason given for the surge has never taken place.  2007 was the most deadly year in Iraq for our troops and for the Iraqi's.  In case any one has not noticed, 13 americans have already been killed in Iraq this month and from the same causes.  Our troops and our country were safer on the previous administration's watch.  That says it all. 

Nuclear Arms In The Middle East

I wrote a commentary on November 14 concerning Israel, India, and Pakistan having stockpiles of nuclear and other WMD and not being a part of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as other nations are.  Now it has been revealed through newly released documents from the Nixon Presidential Library, that in 1969, Nixon and his close advisers were worried about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.  Their worry was Israel's development of a Nuclear capacity.  National security advisor Henry Kissinger wrote Nixon a memorandum and pointed out that the Israelis are probably more likely than almost any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.  Kissinger also said this is one program on which the Israelis has persistently deceived America and may even have stolen from America.

 

That was 38 years ago.  Just think what kind of WMD arsenal Israel must have at this time and it is unchecked by the United States and the international community.  It is time for the U.S. and other countries to demand Israel open its facilities to inspection.  

 

The leaders of Israel are too unstable to have this unchecked arsenal of WMD.  They would just as soon put our country in harms way to further their own ambition in the Middle East and the world.  They use their military power with impunity and they continue to build and extend their settlements on Palestinian land.  Is it any wonder why India and Pakistan developed a nuclear weapons program?  And is it any wonder why Iran may want to have a nuclear capacity when Israel can use its military with impunity?

 

The United States needs to re-evaluate its foreign policy with Israel.  No more blank checks and automatic backing.  Israel needs to earn our support like any other country.  Israel's powerful lobby in the U.S. needs to be kept at arms length.  The leaders of Israel can not be trusted; they lie.  And for those who think otherwise about Israel, they should read the book, "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford and judge for themselves.

Obama Wants You To Know That He DOES Have Foreign Policy Experience

It's no secret that the campaign is getting heated and possibly the most heated battle is between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama's argument has been that Clinton is too "old school", while Clinton touts that Obama is way too inexperienced to be President. Well, Obama is going to put an end to the notion that he is too inexperienced on foreign policy. Here is Obama's own words on his foreign policy credentials:

"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

Yup, thats right, I guess all I have to do to be President is to go live in Indonesia for four years. Here is Sen. Clinton's response:

"Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face. I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in."

So, I guess the question is who is more experienced on foreign policy---someone who lived in Indonesia for 4 years when he was a child, or someone who has traveled the world and met with the leaders of dozens of countries? This is where I would normally interject to give my thoughts on who is most qualified to be President, but I think you can decide that.

McCain vs. Giuliani

Well it finally appears that at least one Republican is ready to get tough against GOP Presidential frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani. Too long have the other Republican Presidential candidates let Giuliani falsify his way to the top of the polls. This past week, and especially today on Fox News Sunday, John McCain began to lead the fight on pointing out how the former New York City mayor isn't as experienced as he would like you to think.

McCain first turned up the heat on Giuliani Thursday when it was announced that Giuliani's former police chief, Bernard Kerik, had been indicted on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, and lying to the IRS. Giuliani had apparently been briefed on Kerik's past and still proceeded to hire him as police chief. In late 2003, Giuliani, with knowledge of Kerik's criminal past, recommended to the President that Kerik should succeed Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security. President Bush, because of Giuliani's recommendation, did nominate Kerik. (Kerik eventually withdrew his acceptance of the nomination.) McCain is now calling Giuliani out on his judgment, and rightfully so. We don't need another President like the one we have now---one that puts personal friendship and loyalty before the law. McCain pointed out that today on Fox that Giuliani essentially tells voters that he is the only candidate that they can trust with national security. Yet, as McCain said, how can Giuliani be trusted on homeland security if he was willing to recommended Kerik, whom Giuiani apparently knew had criminal ties, to the post of Secretary of Homeland Security.

The second issue on which McCain has come out swinging against Giuliani is on the topic of foreign policy experience. Giuliani, in just about every speech, touts how experienced he is on foreign policy. The fact is that Giuliani has zero foreign policy experience. McCain, on the other hand, has a plethora of experience when it comes to dealing with foreign nations.

The third issue that I think is critical is the fact that Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group because he wanted to make more money by giving speeches. Anybody like Giuliani, who is worth millions of dollars yet thinks that making more money is more important than the Iraq War, shouldn't be President. McCain pointed that out this morning saying something to the effect that a President must show that he cares and is interested in the troops, but Giuliani failed to do so when given a prime opportunity. McCain, however, has shown a great interest in our troops by visiting Iraq many times and talking to soldiers when they arrive home.

The reason Giuliani is leading in the polls is clearly because voters see him as the most experienced on issues such as national security, foreign relations, and the war in Iraq. But, by looking at Giuliani's past compared with other candidates, you see that Giuliani is indeed the least experienced candidate. Joe Biden was definitely right when he called Giuliani "the most unqualified person to be commander-in-chief". With that being said, the other GOP candidates have done absolutely nothing to challenge Giuliani on his record. Finally though, John McCain has started to do just that. And while I am certainly not a John McCain fan, I am even less of a Rudy fan and I am very glad to see that at least one GOP candidate is trying to get the truth out to the American public. Rudy Giuliani is not what he says he is---not by far. Republicans would do themselves a lot of good to actually look into Rudy's past and make an informed decision, instead of believing every word that Giuliani says.

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.

Tom Tancredo: the craziest conservative yet?

We all know that there have been many far-right crazy conservatives in the past decades, but as Rep. Tom Tancredo continues to come to fame in the 2008 Election, and his views get revealed, he could prove to be the wackiest yet.

First of all, if we didn't know that Tancredo was anti-hispanic immigration, then maybe his statement a few years back should be brought up. Tancredo referred to the city of Miami as "a third world country". He has compared Miami to Havana, Cuba on numerous occasions as well, saying, "I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana — I guess it's equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn't much of a difference between the two anymore." So I can respect someone if there opposed to illegal immigration, there are actual reasons to be opposed, butto be opposed to Miami, Florida? For what? The only clear explanation is that Tancredo sees Miami a hispanic-immigrant city, which it partially is, but isn't that a good thing. Cultural diversity is what makes the United States, a country of immigrants I might add, so great.

Then there is what Tancredo would call his foreign policy. He introduced it at a Town Hall Meeting in Iowa last month. Tom Tancredo said that to deter the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States, that we should threaten to bomb the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. And that if there was ever another attack on the U.S., we should go ahead and destroy the two cities. What an absurd, ignorant statement to make. Even the State Department called him out on this issue. I'm all for deterring terrorists, but to bomb Islam's holiest cities? Mecca and Medina are important to the Islam religion, destroying them would anger millions of good-willed Muslims who currently want no to harm to the U.S. If anything it would spark an outrage in the Middle East and then every Muslim would be out to destroy the U.S.

Rep. Tancredo. here's an idea: lets go after al-Qaeda where they are planning attacks, instead of playing world police in Iraq. Maybe if we target the terrorists in Afghanistan and work with Musharraf, we could capture and kill bin-Laden. Thats the way to protect the United States.