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.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
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.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
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.
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!
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)