Archive Page 2

23
Oct
09

Obama must stop stalling on Afghanistan

From the day Obama was nominated by his party to be their candidate for President, it seems that not a minute of Obama speaking went by that he in some way blamed every problem on the Bush administration.  One of the largest issues this tune was sung to was the wars in the Middle East, specifically in Afghanistan.  Obama criticized constantly the efforts of the Bush administration, or lack there of, on Bush’s first war in the Middle East.  Now, I am not going to sit here and say that Bush did a fantastic job with Afghanistan, because we all now that he tended to slack of there after the use of force in Iraq and “tada”, the Taliban is again a force to be reckoned with.  But, from day one Obama has blamed all the events in Afghanistan on President Bush, and claim that he had a better strategy.  Yet, something from the very beginning seemed fishy.  When Obama placed his administration into power, he kept one Bush administrator in a very key position.  Obama kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who plays one of the key roles in the strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is such a rare decision, in fact I am not sure that it has ever been done before.  Weeks after Obama took office, especially after talking to my friends and family who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have said that Obama left Gates in power in order to have a scape goat if things did not go well.  This would allow him to keep blaming the Bush administration on Afghanistan even though he has had control for almost a year.  Last night, new information  arose that supports my theory.

Dick Cheney gave some interesting information, that as I write this has not been discredited by the Obama administration.  Cheney said that during the transition period, the administrations met about Afghanistan.  The Bush administration went over the policy that they had come up with and the Obama administration liked it.  They decided to use it, and then asked that the Bush administration keep all that information secret.  So the time has come for the Obama administration to “pony up” and stop the blame game.  He will have to start answering for his own decisions, and stop blaming Bush.  Now the man he has placed in charge in Afghanistan has requested more troops, and states that if he does not get those troops we will lose in Afghanistan.  While our men and women are fighting a losing battle, Obama is pandering to the left of his party and taking weeks and months to come up with a strategy before sending the troops.

Rahm Emanuel has claimed that sending the requested troops without making a decision, would be irresponsible because sending more troops would be setting us down a certain path.  Senator John Kerry stated that giving in to the request before the elections in Afghanistan were decided would be irresponsible.  I state that not giving in to the request of your appointed General and listening to lobbyists and the far left of your party for weeks, all while the lives of our men and women are being put on the line is absolutely irresponsible, and in fact it is unforgivable.  This is a perfect example of politicians playing politics with the lives of our friends and families.  With military conflict, I believe it is a must to do what is necessary for victory or not use it at all, or in this case get out.  But we can not do that either.  To get up and leave now would be completely ignorant of what the Taliban will do if they were allowed to regain political power.  This is the same “party” who has one of the worst human rights records in the world.  For those of us who have seen the movie “Kite Runner,” and even more so for those of us that have personally seen or experienced it, the Taliban has the amount of evil capability in them as the Nazi party x10.  From child sex slave trafficking, to opium production, to intense sharia law, and of course their treating of women as worse than dogs, the Taliban cannot be left to do as they please with the very weak political system that has been established under the presence of the United States.  Our leaving would leave Afghanistan with a tragic civil war, the end of which would begin a time period of massive human rights violations not seen since Kosovo.

Obama needs to send the troops and resources his Generals require in order to keep safe the lives of Americans that are in Afghanistan.  Then, he can make his decision about a new plan.  I pray that President Obama will stop playing politics with lives of our brothers and sisters, and that he will do what is right, rather than what will keep him in good position with the left of his party.  That or pull them all out and prepare for the coming storm.  Although I do not support pulling the troops completely out at this point, it would be better than putting American forces at unnecessary risk, while playing with the bureaucracy.

Advertisements
21
Oct
09

Too Early to Discuss 2012? I Don’t Think So

It seems like yesterday that we had gone out and voted for either Barack Obama or John McCain, and after that election I always assumed it would be years before I wanted to hear about another Presidential campaign.  With it being nearly a year after the 2008 election, we have seen enough to make a good assumption of what the remaining three years are going to be.  It scares me to think of it.  Although the time for us to make our decisions for who the next President of the United States will seems far off, it is never to early to start looking at those who would make the greatest candidate for his or her party.  There are already names being thrown around for who will run for the Republican nomination in 2012, and so now is the time to get a head start at looking at those who may arise to the occasion.

In the Republican Party, I will look at whom thus far seems to be the front runners.  The candidates that seem to be standing out are Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin.

Mitt Romney has been doing a lot of traveling promoting his political action committee (PAC), “Free and Strong America.”  Many people in 2008 felt uneasy about his becoming pro-life and pro-marriage, and didn’t trust that these changes were   pure of heart.  Yet, with the help of his PAC he has traveled the country promoting and supporting conservative candidates.  There is still much skepticism,and dare I say vile rejection, from the “Evangelical Right” that Romney is a pro-life candidate.  Romney is a business and economic “demi-god.”  He took the corrupt, near bankrupt Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002 and took it from what was certain to be debt for Utah into a $50 million dollar surplus.  His other success stories include Staples and Dominoes.

Mike Huckabee has the perfect platform to have his voice heard:  The Fox News Channel.  His weekend talk show is quite popular and rightfully so.  His new take on news programming is refreshing from the live audience to his playing with the guest band on his bass guitar.  In the 2008 election, Huckabee became the candidate of the Christian Right, and not many else.  He was the social conservative candidate versus a fiscal conservative candidate.  His views on  immigration and his social health programs were widely criticized and caused him much strife in gaining the support of the “Libertarian Conservatives.”  Learning from his mistakes, Huckabee, while still advocating his Christian Conservative principles, has shifted the focus from his social political thought to his fiscal political thought.  Huckabee knows how to fill a room with laughter.  He is a real stand up guy, who when talking can make you feel at ease.

Sarah Palin has also stood out as a possible presidential candidate in 2012.  Sarah Palin gets most of her support due to her intense celebrity status in the Republican Party.  While I do not question her intelligence, drive, ethics, or clout, unless something changes in the next three years (which it could), Sarah Palin as the nominee would be the key to another Obama victory.  She MUST become more policy oriented in her speeches, and less the politician of one-liners.  She has a lot of redeeming to do, due to the botched 2008 election.

In the Democratic Party, it may seem like their choice is already made and that Obama is the definite candidate.  It most likely is, but I would not be surprised to see a member of his administration running against him in the primary.  A recent poll shows that Hillary Clinton has a higher approval rating than Barrack Obama at this point.  Clinton’s run for the presidency also was ended on wobbly terms.  She did not seem real ready to give up her fight.  Clinton hungers for the presidency, and unless something changes I could see her being Obama’s opponent in the primary.

The 2012 elections will be here before we know it.  At this time, I already have made my choice on who I believe, so far, to be the best choice for the Republican candidate for President.  With fiscal responsibility being completely ignored, and the economy suffering the way it is, it is obvious that Mitt Romney should be our choice for 2012.  The issue of the times is the economy and fiscal responsibility.  Although, his social positions may be shaky, I have to put those concerns aside and vote for the man who I first most believe can save our country and the economy.  Not only will he be the best we have to offer, he is the candidate who will be able to get us a victory.  I fear that Huckabee will bring a view that voting for him is voting for a specific religious agenda, rather than the conservative platform he promotes.  Needless to say, with two of these three candidates I feel proud to be a Republican.  These rising stars and possible future leaders of the party, proclaim what we as Republicans need to stand up for.  2012 here we come!  But first…..2010!

20
Oct
09

The Real Obama “Quagmire”

Over the past few weeks, the Obama administration has been sending out its troops to fight a new war.  Managing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has not been enough for the President and his administration, so they decided to start another.  Over this past weekend, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod, and Communications Director Anita Dunn led the troops to battle against what they apparently felt was one of the top enemies to America and the Obama administration:  the Fox News Channel.  Anita Dunn called Fox News “a wing of the Republican Party” Sunday on CNN, then going further to say, “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”  Rahm Emanuel, also on Sunday, stated that Fox News “is not a news organization,” on John King’s “State of the Union” on CNN.  David Axelrod got on his soapbox on George Stephanopoulos’s “This Week” on ABC proclaiming that:

“…if you watch even its not even their commentators, but a lot of their news program. It’s really not news, it’s pushing a point of view and the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours, ought not to treat them that way…”

Now, why the sudden attacks on Fox News?  Why slap the hand of Fox News while patting the backs of the other news organizations?  The fact of the matter is that the Obama administration despises criticism of all kinds from anyone.  Who is the one news organization that has asked the tough questions and committed the real investigative journalism?  Glenn Beck has nearly single-handedly forced the democrats to vote to cut funding from ACORN, and forced the resignation of Van Jones as “Green Czar.”  This is when the most volatile attacks began.  The attacks and the strong counter attacks to criticisms arise from the sense of arrogance that seems to flow from this administration.  We seem to get the persona from the administration that they know better than everyone else on what we want, and they just cannot understand why people disagree.  Not since President Nixon has America seen such disdain from a President towards one media outlet.  Nixon once sent a memo to all his administration stating that they were to offer no interviews or information to the New York Times.  And we all know what happened to him.  Already, there has been, unexpectedly to the Obama adminstration, a backlash to the war on Fox News.  Correspondents from CNN and ABC have already begun to criticize the attacks.  While many left leaning journalists, bloggers, etc. disagree with Fox News, they utterly are disgusted by a President who attempts to shut down a news organization.  Yet, the administration shows no signs of letting up.  Fox News was recently told by the administration that they will receive no interviews from Obama till at least  2010.  This is a war they are destined to lose, but they are going to fight it to no avail.  This war is their quagmire.  Fox News is the most watched news network in the country and the “conflict” is only contributing to a rise in their viewership.  I think that Chris Wallace sums it up perfectly when he says the Obama administration is, “the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.”

19
Oct
09

Going “Nuclear” on the Government Option Will Blow Up in the Face of Dems

Due to disagreement within the Democratic Party, and universal agreement against it in the Republican Party, the liberals in Congress are setting up for a “nuclear” in order to push through the government option for their healthcare nightmare.  Now many of you may be wondering, what exactly is the nuclear option, also known as reconciliation?  When Congress decides to make a bill  “nuclear” it means that it cuts off debate on the bill and calls for an immediate vote, which then can be passed by a simple majority rather than a filibuster proof majority (3/5 majority).  This is not an official ability of the Senate but is taken from a 1957 advisory written by Richard Nixon that forbade the Senate from making any rule that would prohibit the Senate from making future decisions with a simple majority.  This would mean that with refusal of Democrat’s in Congress to post their bill at least 72 hours before they vote on it, combined with the “nuclear option,” would allow them to pass a estimated $829 billion ($829,000,000,000: just to put it in perspective) without sufficient debate or sufficient time to read the bill.  If the government option is what is best for America, then why do the Democrats won’t to hide it from us and then force it down out throats?  Because they themselves know, that if we saw what they were actually trying to do and did not only receive the bullet points they were given from the DNC, they would lose practically all support for the bill.  Americans are tired of the back door politics that this Congress has time and time again applied to get their way.  Now you may think that with an approval rating of 21%, things could not get any worse for our representatives, but in a recent poll done by Gallup, Republicans and Democrats are looking at close elections come 2010 (if the elections were held today 46% would vote for Dems, 44% would vote for Repubs).  The “nuclear option” could be the straw that breaks the camels back.  Americans can only take so much blatant disregard for transparency, before they come to the polls in droves and vote against one party rule.  My fear is that by then it may be too late.  If the government option passes, we well continue the precedent of reckless spending that Washington has embraced and protects like a mamma bear protects her cub.  All this spending, and no accountability….Isn’t that how we got into the economic mess to begin with?




Blog Stats

  • 284 hits