It Seems O So Long Ago....

that America had a leader its people can trust; that America had a leader that its people can respect; that America had a leader who is for peace; that America had a leader who cares for the people; that America had a leader who could admit when he was wrong; that America had a leader who actually led.

But contrary to what it may seem, it wasn't that long ago. It was only 7 years ago that America had a President that stood for dignity and stood for what is right. But thats what 7 years of Bush/Cheney will do to a person.

American unity and bipartisanship was at its peak following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The country rallied behind its President. George Bush had all the support a President could ever want. He had all the trust a President could want. And he had all the respect a President could want. And what did he do with it? He took advantage of that support, that trust, and that respect and turned around and blatantly lied to the American people and to Congress to justify a war with Iraq. The President and highly respected members of his administration went out on a nation-wide tour rallying support for a war. The reason they gave: Iraq has WMDs and is a direct and immediate threat to the U.S.

The American people, at that time, had no reason not to trust in and believe their President. There was no precedent for a President misleading his people into war. Even the thought of that was unimaginable. But in just a few years, the truth came out. Not only did Bush and his administration mislead the American people and Congress, they did it purposely. There is now overwhelming evidence that Bush knew damn well that Iraq and Saddam did not have WMDs and were in no way a threat to the the U.S. Yet, even while knowing this, he told the American people the exact opposite.

Now, his credibility is shattered. I'll tell you what was the "final straw" for me. I remember watching the news in 2003, a few days before the war began, and I remember hearing Saddam Hussein say that he did not have nuclear weapons. I specifically remember what I said in response, "that lying bastard". Those were my exact words. I can't even begin to explain how it felt when the truth came out. In that instance, Saddam Hussein wasn't lying, our own President was. Never in my life time did I even dream that a country as great as America would have a liar as a President. But I then came to the sad realization that we do.

When I read the latest intelligence report, that old feeling was again conjured up . For the last year, President Bush and VP Cheney have been warning the American people and Congress of the threat of Iran. According to Bush and Cheney, Iran was on the brink of having nuclear weapons and posed an immediate and direct threat to the U.S. Ahmadinejad, the
President of Iran, has been for months saying that he is not developing or seeking nuclear weapons.

But, once again, the truth has come out. And the truth is that Iran has not been working on developing nuclear weapons since 2003. Thats almost 5 years ago. And once again, there is growing evidence that the Bush administration knew of this fact much earlier that did the public. So why then, just a few weeks ago, did President Bush come on national television and tell the country that Iran and its nuclear weapons were going to bring about World War III? The sad thing is, that if this information didn't come to light sooner, the President would had probably decided to attack Iran anyway, despite knowing the facts. Then it wouldn't be Iran's fault for starting WWIII, it would be America's.....and thats the saddest thought of all.

To think that a U.S. President would lie and manipulate the emotions of his people to start a war used to be an inconceivable notion. Sadly, it is no longer inconceivable; it happened. I'm just thankful it didn't happen yet again. So while it may seem o so long ago that America had a President who actually benefitted the country, I remind you with hope that there is only a year to go. I just hope and pray that America doesn't make the same mistake next November as it did in 2000 (or should I say the Supreme Court made in 2000)? It's time to elect a leader that America can trust; that America can respect, who is for peace; who puts the people first; who can admit when he/she is wrong. Its time for America to elect a leader who will actually lead.

Can't People Take A Joke?

The media has gone crazy in recent days over a statement that the Clinton campaign released about Barack Obama wanting to be President even when he was in kindergarten. In all seriousness, can people not recognize a joke when they see one? Have we really become so stiff that when a campaign makes a joke, we can't just laugh at it and move on, but rather spin it into something its not? Aren't there more important things for the media to cover than this? After watching yesterday and today's lineup on CNN and MSNBC, that statement made by the Clinton campaign has gotten more analysis and air time than the intelligence report saying that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

In all honesty, you don't even have to be a Clinton supporter to admit that there is something wrong with that. Since when has a joke become more important than actual hard news? Is that what America and its media is coming to---where a joke has to be spun into some sort of scandalous controversy? Criticize Sen. Clinton on her policies as much as you want; thats fair game, but stop spinning every little thing that comes out her mouth into a scandal. And that doesn't just go for Sen. Clinton, that goes for any candidate. The American people have a right to know the truth about a candidate and what he or she says. Today, however, thats not happening because the media is just looking for a big story. And when they don't have a big story, or at least don't think they have one, they make one up. Thats exactly what they did here and this isn't the first time. It has happened to other candidates too and its time to stop.

No End In Sight

It has been reported by the Washington Post that the Bush administration is seeking to have the Iraqi government complete reform legislation that has been long delayed within the next six months.  One of our envoy's will again try to end the political deadlock.

 

Once again the time line has been pushed back by this President.  When he announced the surge, September was going to be the time to judge.  When September came and only 3 of 18 conditions were met, it was given another 3 months.  Now Bush is giving them another 6 months which pushes the original time line to June 2008.

 

Mr. Bush continues to be wrong about everything concerning Iraq.  It is a bottomless pit for taking American and Iraqi lives and the billions of dollars already consumed and Mr. Bush is pressing for more.  The American people should note that with all the talk about Iraq being safer, 38 american troops were killed in October and November.  That number stayed steady, and we have some people who want this war and occupation to go on forever. 

 

This war is not worth one more american death.  Too many have already been killed and wounded over WMD that did not exist.  If the people keep reminding Congress of the reasons Bush gave for going to war, Congress would end this sad chapter in American history. 

Pure Gold

All you have do to understand the title is watch this, Mike Gravel's latest internet video hit:



Say what you want about Mike Gravel, and quite frankly I say he is a little crazy, but I must admit Gravel has a point in his message here.

New Energy Legislation vs. Greed

The House of Representatives in Congress recently passed energy legislation that would provide for a 40% increase in fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 2020 for a fleet wide average of 35 mpg.  It will be up to the Senate now to reconcile any differences they may have before it can be sent to Mr. Bush for his signature.

 

It has been reported that Republican Rep. Joe Barton said that if the bill clears Congress, he would recommend that Bush veto it.  Some Republicans have complained that the bill does not do enough to increase domestic production of oil.  Can you imagine that?  With $90 barrel oil, $3 gas, our import of oil up over 36% since the Arab embargo of 1975, and now we import over 60% of America consumption and some Republicans say that. 

 

Their problem is they want more corporate welfare for big oil.  There is enough reasons for big oil out there to increase production right now.  Big oil is so connected with foreign producers, they invest money overseas that could be used in the United States.  In a nut shell, it is called GREED.  The United States is going through the most sustained period of price increases in oil and gas and all because of the war in Iraq and speculation.  And who are the speculators and the ones who benefit from this speculation?  Yea, you guessed right.  And now they are working on the latest speculation----war in Iran.

 

The bottom line is that the oil and gas industry does not need any more corporate welfare deals to increase production or drill new wells when we are importing 60% of our needs.  Greed runs in their blood. 

Romney To Address Mormonism

Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has decided that he will finally address his faith in much the same way JFK did back in 1960. Romney will the give the speech, titled "Faith in America", at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas this Thursday.

My first thought when I heard this news is that this could be a mistake on the part of Romney. I'm not quite sure why Romney has decided that now, at the pinnacle of his strength, is the best time to give a speech. As the saying goes, why mess up a good thing? Romney is ahead in Iowa (discounting the latest poll that has Huckabee just a few points ahead and well within the margin of error), ahead in New Hampshire, and ahead in South Carolina. Indeed, a big reason for Romney's boom in South Carolina, that brought him from 4th place to 1st in about a month, is the fact that evangelical voters are finally warming up to him. So why go out and remind them of your Mormonism?

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is with faith. We're not electing a leader of a church, we're electing the leader of America. But, unfortunately, a particular faith is something that is very important to many voters, especially in strong evangelical states in the South and Mid-West. So why, if he's doing so well, is Romney going to risk throwing his success away? As I said in the past, once Romney gets the nomination, he might need to make a speech, but right now, during the Republican nomination process, I'm not sure if its a good thing to remind the strong evangelical (bigot) voters of his faith, which many believe is a cult.

But, maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I hope I'm wrong. Not because I like Romney, but because I would like to see a stronger acceptance of all faiths. Too long have people been looked down upon just because they believe something different and that is something that should never happen in America.

Of course, there's also the possibility that, if presented well, this speech could be a real turning point in the Romney campaign. If delivered with emotion and pride, Americans will look at Romney in a different light. Currently regarded as a slick, stiff businessman, Romney now has the opportunity to open himself up to America. The only question is, will America open itself up back to Romney in response? For that, we'll just have to wait and see. I know that I will be watching intently Thursday night and I look forward to seeing how Romney is received. I just hope that Romney isn't elected because of his faith; there are many other issues for which he shouldn't be elected. His Mormonism isn't one of them.

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.

Sen. McCain's Lack of Fiscal Knowledge

During Wednesday's CNN Republican debate, Senator McCain was asked what he would do to reduce the national debt.  The Senator's answer showed his ignorance of the subject matter and why he should not be taken seriously as a candidate.

 

McCain, in his answer, once again invoked Ronald Reagan.  McCain said that he would use Reagan's veto pen on excess spending to hold the line on spending while eliminating pork.  The Senator used the wrong President.  Ronald Reagan never balanced one federal budget in his 8 years in office and gave the country record deficits at that time.  The national debt increased $1.9 trillion on his watch and spending  was up over the previous administration (Jimmy Carter). 

If McCain plans to emulate Reagan on fiscal matters, he will instead increase the debt and give the country even more deficit spending.  For a person who claims to "shoot straight" and have experience, his answer indicates he is lost when it comes to fiscal matters. The American people need to understand that when Bush leaves office ,the last 3 Republican presidents will not have balanced one budget in the 20 years they served and have increased the national debt by over $7 trillion. 

 

The Republican plan can be plainly understood.  They want to bankrupt the country to eliminate social security, medicare, and other government programs that truly help the American people.  At the same time, they support corporate welfare for the richest corporations and tax cuts and other benefits that go to the most wealthy people. 

 

The Republican's hands have been laid bare.  The GOP candidates have proven (with the exception of Ron Paul) that they care nothing for being fiscally responsible.  Remember, it was Bill Clinton who turned 12 straight years of deficit spending by Reagan-Bush into record surpluses.  Also it was Bill Clinton's administration who paid down a net of $14.2 billion of the national debt.  The people should remember that when they vote in the next presidential election. 

11/28 GOP Debate Review: Romney Scores Big

Tonight, the Republican Presidential hopefuls gathered in front of a Florida crowd and answered questions from ordinary people via YouTube. With the Iowa caucus just a few weeks away, the candidates went all out to differentiate themselves from each other, and most of them were successful.

From the very opening of the debate, the fight was on between the two GOP frontrunners, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. It was in that opening exchange, on the topic of illegal immigration, that Romney got the upper hand and set the tone for the rest of the night. To put it simply, agree with him or not, Romney creamed Giuliani. From that point on, Giuliani was mostly on the defense for the rest of the night, while Romney was red-hot. Romney is often called a "flip-flopper", but tonight he actually appeared the most socially conservative candidate. While I might strongly disagree with Romney's positions, his statements tonight were right on point with the right wing of the GOP. Romney was unquestionably the winner of the debate and I am even more confident in my earlier prediction that Romney will be the Republican nominee.

Two other candidates who I thought had a great night were John McCain and Mike Huckabee. McCain gained major points in my view for standing up to the other candidates and the traditional Republican view that waterboarding is okay. McCain made it clear that waterboarding is indeed torture and is indeed illegal and indeed should never be practiced by the U.S. On that issue I have major respect for McCain. Huckabee, yet again, was the most charming candidate on the stage. He is consistently able to make his point and state his positions without appearing negative. He also had the best line of the night when he said that Jesus was too smart to get involved in politics.

As far as the losers, I would say that there were two big ones. The first loser was Sen. Fred Thompson. Thompson needed to re-establish his frontrunner status, but he utterly failed. I have yet to see Thompson come out firm on a single issue. His debate style is also lacking to say the least. Thompson has a problem with taking long, odd pauses during the middle of his responses or taking several seconds to stare into space while trying to think of a response. If anyone is wondering why Thompson is doing so poorly, just watch this debate and you'll quickly realize why.

The biggest loser of the night, however, was Rudy Giuliani. This was Rudy's worst debate performance. Romney completely destroyed Rudy during the immigration debate early on and also later when it came to Rudy's pro-gun control stances. With Romney gaining on Giuliani in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now leading in South Carolina, tonight was Rudy's chance to gain back some of that support. He didn't though. If anything, Rudy did more to lose support to Romney than he did to win it.

I am going to point out one thing that was said that I take absolute exception to. Duncan Hunter said that the majority of people who join the military are conservative. I take great exception to the claim that liberals don't stand up to serve their country. The fact is that the military is just as diverse as America is as a whole. To imply that liberals don't serve their country is disgraceful and frankly Rep. Hunter should apologize.

The tide is turning on the Republican side. I think in the coming weeks we're going to see the decline of Rudy and the rise of Romney. Romney will win Iowa, win New Hampshire, win South Carolina and then have enough momentum to propel himself through Florida and beyond.

Diplomacy: Democrats Force Realty On Bush

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a lecture at Kansas State University ,said that the U.S. must improve its diplomacy.  He is asking for an increase in not only his department's budget but also the State Department budget.  Gates said we must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military and that there is a need for dramatic increases in spending on the civilian instruments of national security.  That is an astounding statement coming from someone in this administration.  (Diplomacy has always been a part of Democratic administrations concerning national security.)

 

Gates pronouncements is an admission of Mr. Bush's failed foreign policy that has been based on the U.S.'s military might which led to the war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The people realized long ago that diplomacy was abandoned by Mr. Bush.  Gates has followed the same path with the surge and continuation of the war in Iraq.  They are both trying now to salvage what is left of their reputations.  Gates wants more money for his department even as spending for his department is at record levels and that does not include the billions spent for the war.  That money could be better used for more important issues.  Diplomacy for one.

 

Mr. Gates supported the military option in Iraq over diplomacy.  We know from his and Bush's statements that they want a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.  Will they define that as military diplomacy?  The civilian instruments of national security would be a better choice.  The Democratic position on diplomacy through many past presidents have served our nation well and kept our country safe.  They answered the military call when it was necessary to protect our national interest but never was in fear of using diplomacy.  They also kept our country free of such a massive foreign terror attack as occurred on 9-11.

 

Mr. Bush's arrogance, reckless behavior and lack of true diplomacy lost him the moral mantle of world leadership that America was known to possess.  Diplomacy could have saved the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in the war in Iraq if Mr. Bush had used his responsibility as a leader with wisdom.  America's role in the world today has been tainted by the President's reckless behavior.  If he and Gates are ready to use diplomacy as an admission of their failure, let them start with Iraq and bring this war to an end with diplomacy.  It is not to late.