It looks like Congress doesn't know what to do about Libya. On the one hand, they are frustrated that President Obama hasn't asked permission for his actions there, on the other hand they don't want to publicly say that he can do what he's already doing (see story here). The real question is, does the president have the authority.
The War Powers Act came into being when Richard Nixon was in power and the Vietnam War had been going on forever. John Kennedy sent troops there and the US never officially declared war. Congress tolerated it through his short time in office and through Johnson's. After Nixon became president, Congress decided to tie his hands.
Presidents since then have complained about the constitutionality of the law. But they also followed it. There seemed to be a delicate balance of power, not completely unlike what the framers of the constitution wanted. President Obama has stated that he didn't think the law applied, the biggest reason being that we don't have troops on the ground.
Actually, I support the president on this, but there has to be some caution. The next president (in 2012 or 2016) may be a Republican and may use this argument also. In fact, I've found myself agreeing with the president a lot more lately, his decision to surge in Afghanistan, his decision not to pull all troops at once, his decision to leave troops in Iraq, his decision not to close Guantanamo. I think he's come to the realization that this presidential job is a lot harder than he believed when he asked for the job.
Showing posts with label global war on terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global war on terror. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2011
Monday, May 02, 2011
Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead *Updated *
I don't mean to minimize the death of Osama Bin Laden by the silly title. Instead, a part of me wants to celebrate, just as the munchkins in The Wizard of Oz. After 10+ years of being America's Enemy #1, OBL has been eliminated.
My hat goes off to the Navy Seals who took care of the matter. I wish that Marcus Luttrell could have been in on the final operation (see his story here and I highly recommend this book).
I listed to most of the President's speech (TV/DVR errors made me miss part of the middle) and have read the speech this morning. I think he was "spot on". This is a significant event. There may be some reprisals from Al Qaeda (I expect there will be). The war on terror is not over.
I was especially impressed that President Obama took the time to call President Bush (and possibly President Clinton). The former president(s) deserved that. It's a show of respect from the current to the former.
There are lots of questions that should be answered. What took so long? Why did one helicopter have problems? Who will take over Al Qaeda actions and what will our attitude be towards him? But for today, and maybe tomorrow, we should all recognize that this event was significant. I listened to a local conservative radio personality this morning and was glad that he felt the same way. No bashing of the current (or former) president. No complaints. Job well done.
* Update * Just heard the Cal Thomas commentary on local radio. Thomas used the same title for today's commentary (5/4/11). I didn't know Mr. Thomas read my blog, but I'm pleased he used it. Hopefully he will share his fees for the day with me...
My hat goes off to the Navy Seals who took care of the matter. I wish that Marcus Luttrell could have been in on the final operation (see his story here and I highly recommend this book).
I listed to most of the President's speech (TV/DVR errors made me miss part of the middle) and have read the speech this morning. I think he was "spot on". This is a significant event. There may be some reprisals from Al Qaeda (I expect there will be). The war on terror is not over.
I was especially impressed that President Obama took the time to call President Bush (and possibly President Clinton). The former president(s) deserved that. It's a show of respect from the current to the former.
There are lots of questions that should be answered. What took so long? Why did one helicopter have problems? Who will take over Al Qaeda actions and what will our attitude be towards him? But for today, and maybe tomorrow, we should all recognize that this event was significant. I listened to a local conservative radio personality this morning and was glad that he felt the same way. No bashing of the current (or former) president. No complaints. Job well done.
* Update * Just heard the Cal Thomas commentary on local radio. Thomas used the same title for today's commentary (5/4/11). I didn't know Mr. Thomas read my blog, but I'm pleased he used it. Hopefully he will share his fees for the day with me...
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Is war ever worth fighting
My last post included a video of Joan Baez singing "Where have all the flowers gone?" The song was recorded by just about everyone in the 60's and it seemed to be a statement about the war in Vietnam. I was too young to really understand, but it seemed like a good time to be against something and the Vietnam war was an easy target (war as a target, that's something). Songs like this and "One, two, three, four, what are we fighting for?" (officially "I feel like I'm fixing to die" found here with mild profanity) were about as rebellious as I ever became. By the time I was draft age, the Vietnam War was a memory, a bad memory for a lot of people.
You may have seen that the review of the Afghanistan War is out, to be made official tomorrow. This comes at a time when "a record-high 60 percent of Americans think the war is not worth fighting," according this this article. The war has been raging on for just over 9 years now and an end is far away by anyone's judgment.
It made me think - is war ever worth fighting? Our President has said that this is a war of necessity (one of the few times he has agreed with former President Bush). A year ago he approved a surge, much like the one in Iraq, to send 30,000 more troops in, while also announcing an end date. Many on the left disapproved of this surge, wishing instead to get all troops out.
To me, the answer to the question can be found in a poem put to music by Pete Seeger, the same person who put "Where have all the flowers gone?" to music (the poem is found in the Bible, written by Solomon, the other Seeger song was from an old Ukranian folk song according to Wikipedia, not sure if Seeger actually wrote anything himself). According to the song (and to Solomon), "To every thing there is a season" and more importantly there is "a time of war, and a time of peace." If the Byrds sang it, it has to be so.
The real key is understanding when is the time for war and when is the time for peace. Most Americans would agree that 1776 was a time for war. Through a long fought battle, that wasn't popular with all Americans, we gained our freedom and began a democratic experiment that goes on today. Most people today blame Southerners for the Civil War, and while we did fire the first shot, the war would never have begun if the Union states had left the Confederate states alone. If you believe that the war was over slavery and that slavery needed to be ended (and I do to both), you'll have to say that 1861 was a time for war.
I may not always (often?) agree with this President, but I have to say that I believe he understands this concept. Sometimes, there is a time for war. We may soon find out if this is a time for war in Korea. I hope not. But I hope this President will continue to grow in his understanding of the phrase "a time to every purpose under the heaven:"
You may have seen that the review of the Afghanistan War is out, to be made official tomorrow. This comes at a time when "a record-high 60 percent of Americans think the war is not worth fighting," according this this article. The war has been raging on for just over 9 years now and an end is far away by anyone's judgment.
It made me think - is war ever worth fighting? Our President has said that this is a war of necessity (one of the few times he has agreed with former President Bush). A year ago he approved a surge, much like the one in Iraq, to send 30,000 more troops in, while also announcing an end date. Many on the left disapproved of this surge, wishing instead to get all troops out.
To me, the answer to the question can be found in a poem put to music by Pete Seeger, the same person who put "Where have all the flowers gone?" to music (the poem is found in the Bible, written by Solomon, the other Seeger song was from an old Ukranian folk song according to Wikipedia, not sure if Seeger actually wrote anything himself). According to the song (and to Solomon), "To every thing there is a season" and more importantly there is "a time of war, and a time of peace." If the Byrds sang it, it has to be so.
The real key is understanding when is the time for war and when is the time for peace. Most Americans would agree that 1776 was a time for war. Through a long fought battle, that wasn't popular with all Americans, we gained our freedom and began a democratic experiment that goes on today. Most people today blame Southerners for the Civil War, and while we did fire the first shot, the war would never have begun if the Union states had left the Confederate states alone. If you believe that the war was over slavery and that slavery needed to be ended (and I do to both), you'll have to say that 1861 was a time for war.
I may not always (often?) agree with this President, but I have to say that I believe he understands this concept. Sometimes, there is a time for war. We may soon find out if this is a time for war in Korea. I hope not. But I hope this President will continue to grow in his understanding of the phrase "a time to every purpose under the heaven:"
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
What the election means to me
I don't pretend to be a political pundit or to have my finger on the pulse of the electorate. There are plenty of bloggers who will do that and give in depth analysis. Instead, I will simply point out a couple of things yesterday's elections mean to me.
As you've probably read, Republicans won big in many elections, especially in SC. We elected the first ever female governor, a lady of Indian descent (born in SC to Indian parents). We also elected our first African-American Republican Representative, Tim Scott. He's not a representative to my district, but I've seen some very good things about him. For SC to elect these two is very progressive for a state that isn't known for it's progressiveness. We also elected a real conservative Representative (Trey Gowdy) in my district to replace a pseudo-conservative Representative (Bob Inglis).
We passed four amendments in SC, guaranteeing a right for hunting and fishing, a right to a secret ballot in union elections and helping fiscal soundness.
I've already seen reports of voter intimidation and expect we'll see more. These incidents should be dealt with quickly and (if accurate) severely. I would hope that candidates on both (or all) sides will come down hard on these people.
Am I celebrating this morning? Hardly. We still have an economic mess in this nation and it's not going to be over soon. We still have a social mess with the Federal Government trying to get into too many parts of my life and that won't end soon. Our nation is still at risk from terrorists and I see people and politicians willing to close their eyes to avoid looking at it. And we have an abundance of politicians who claim to be leaders that have serious moral issues and personal baggage.
So I guess I'm troubled. Happy that the results went the way I wanted, but nervous that it won't make a difference. Or at least enough of a difference.
As you've probably read, Republicans won big in many elections, especially in SC. We elected the first ever female governor, a lady of Indian descent (born in SC to Indian parents). We also elected our first African-American Republican Representative, Tim Scott. He's not a representative to my district, but I've seen some very good things about him. For SC to elect these two is very progressive for a state that isn't known for it's progressiveness. We also elected a real conservative Representative (Trey Gowdy) in my district to replace a pseudo-conservative Representative (Bob Inglis).
We passed four amendments in SC, guaranteeing a right for hunting and fishing, a right to a secret ballot in union elections and helping fiscal soundness.
I've already seen reports of voter intimidation and expect we'll see more. These incidents should be dealt with quickly and (if accurate) severely. I would hope that candidates on both (or all) sides will come down hard on these people.
Am I celebrating this morning? Hardly. We still have an economic mess in this nation and it's not going to be over soon. We still have a social mess with the Federal Government trying to get into too many parts of my life and that won't end soon. Our nation is still at risk from terrorists and I see people and politicians willing to close their eyes to avoid looking at it. And we have an abundance of politicians who claim to be leaders that have serious moral issues and personal baggage.
So I guess I'm troubled. Happy that the results went the way I wanted, but nervous that it won't make a difference. Or at least enough of a difference.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
End of the Iraq war
You've probably heard, the last combat troops are officially leaving Iraq. There will still be troops there in an advisory role (read that - dangerous position), and the combat troops will be close - just in case - but the war is officially over.
I thought about this last night and then was reminded when I saw a post on another blog. We owe the people that have served there a debt of gratitude. In a time when the nation was more divided than ever, they served without question. The ones that I have spoken to never asked if we should be there, or why we were there, they just served.
A special thank you to Adam who was there for 8 months, to David - who sat out this war - but was there for the first Iraqi war, to his son David - who is on a ship somewhere in the ocean, to Jim who served as an aide to an Iraqi general, to the teacher's husband, who was an engineer who took time from his life here to go, and to Jimmy, a marine who helped clean up IEDs.
Next week, I will fly to Dallas for a conference. I plan to personally approach anyone in uniform and thank them for there service. It's the least I can do. If you know someone that has served, please thank them. You're welcome to comment and add their name here.
I thought about this last night and then was reminded when I saw a post on another blog. We owe the people that have served there a debt of gratitude. In a time when the nation was more divided than ever, they served without question. The ones that I have spoken to never asked if we should be there, or why we were there, they just served.
A special thank you to Adam who was there for 8 months, to David - who sat out this war - but was there for the first Iraqi war, to his son David - who is on a ship somewhere in the ocean, to Jim who served as an aide to an Iraqi general, to the teacher's husband, who was an engineer who took time from his life here to go, and to Jimmy, a marine who helped clean up IEDs.
Next week, I will fly to Dallas for a conference. I plan to personally approach anyone in uniform and thank them for there service. It's the least I can do. If you know someone that has served, please thank them. You're welcome to comment and add their name here.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Count the cost - part 2
Yesterday I asked the question "when do you count the cost?" as it relates to you individually. More important is the question "when do you ignore the cost?" and do something. The example I gave was an emergency room visit.
Today I want to ask if the same logic applies to the U.S. as a country? Is there (or should there be) a time to do something without regard to the cost?
For example, we recently had the 68th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor - a day which has lived in infamy since that day. We all (hopefully) know what happened and the result was the U.S. entry into WW II. The cost of that war was tremendous. But no one questioned the cost or has said that we shouldn't have gone to war. Just let the Japanese (and Germans) take what they wanted. Instead, we ignored the cost, figured we'd pay for it later.
The cost was paid in lives and in sacrifices of U.S. citizens. I've heard my parents talk about rationing, and the shortages. But no one questioned it.
I believe that 9/11 was another such time to ignore the cost. Whether you believe we took the right action or not, is not the discussion at this point. Should we have ignored the cost and gone after terrorism? We will pay for the decision for a long time. And we don't (yet) know what the total cost will be. But I believe it was the right decision.
How about the stimulus package from earlier this year? We were told we had to do something and it had to be done right then. There was no time to "count the cost". What else? Where else is it right for us as a country to ignore the cost and continue?
Today I want to ask if the same logic applies to the U.S. as a country? Is there (or should there be) a time to do something without regard to the cost?
For example, we recently had the 68th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor - a day which has lived in infamy since that day. We all (hopefully) know what happened and the result was the U.S. entry into WW II. The cost of that war was tremendous. But no one questioned the cost or has said that we shouldn't have gone to war. Just let the Japanese (and Germans) take what they wanted. Instead, we ignored the cost, figured we'd pay for it later.
The cost was paid in lives and in sacrifices of U.S. citizens. I've heard my parents talk about rationing, and the shortages. But no one questioned it.
I believe that 9/11 was another such time to ignore the cost. Whether you believe we took the right action or not, is not the discussion at this point. Should we have ignored the cost and gone after terrorism? We will pay for the decision for a long time. And we don't (yet) know what the total cost will be. But I believe it was the right decision.
How about the stimulus package from earlier this year? We were told we had to do something and it had to be done right then. There was no time to "count the cost". What else? Where else is it right for us as a country to ignore the cost and continue?
Friday, January 23, 2009
A sign of things to come
I have to start by saying that I'm not happy with the world reputation that we (Americans) have due to the problems at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Frankly, I'm not sure what we should do with these prisoners.
As an American, I think everyone deserves a fair trial. The prisoners are not Americans, but I still think they should be treated with respect and humanity. My understanding of the interrogation techniques is more than I care to understand.
But I also know that what hap pend almost 8 years ago was the most horrific thing that has happened to the United States in my lifetime. More horrific than the current crisis we face. Both the economic crisis and the perception crisis around the world. And if it takes housing prisoners in Cuba and interrogation techniques more horrific than I can imagine, then so be it.
Unfortunately, it looks like we will loose that bargaining chip. For the last 8 years, we've done it ourselves, prior to that we, outsourced those actions to other countries.
The New York Times is reporting that a former prisoner in Cuba, who was released in 2007, has risen to become a new chief within the Al Qaeda network. Is this a sign of things to come? I hope not. See the full article here.
As an American, I think everyone deserves a fair trial. The prisoners are not Americans, but I still think they should be treated with respect and humanity. My understanding of the interrogation techniques is more than I care to understand.
But I also know that what hap pend almost 8 years ago was the most horrific thing that has happened to the United States in my lifetime. More horrific than the current crisis we face. Both the economic crisis and the perception crisis around the world. And if it takes housing prisoners in Cuba and interrogation techniques more horrific than I can imagine, then so be it.
Unfortunately, it looks like we will loose that bargaining chip. For the last 8 years, we've done it ourselves, prior to that we, outsourced those actions to other countries.
The New York Times is reporting that a former prisoner in Cuba, who was released in 2007, has risen to become a new chief within the Al Qaeda network. Is this a sign of things to come? I hope not. See the full article here.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Why did Barack Obama win & John McCain lose?
I know you're tired of hearing about the election. But I wanted to summarize some of the information I've heard/read about the election results and offer some opinion.
On election day, I listened to Dave Ramsey. For those of you who don't know, he runs a radio program about financial management. He is big on getting out of debt and talks to people daily who are over their heads, looking at bankruptcy or just sick and tired of being sick and tired. He's on the local Christian radio station, and he speaks from a Christian perspective, but he speaks to people of all faiths and people of no faith.
Ramsey's program on Tuesday was devoted to asking people who they voted for and why. If someone said they thought their candidate was better, he wanted to know what issues made them better. In doing so, he discouraged any arguments based on age or race. From my unscientific viewpoint, the calls were pretty much balanced between the two candidates with a sprinkling of calls for third party candidates.
There were three messages that I heard repeated several times: 1) Obama represents a change from the policies of Bush, 2) Obama is better able to handle the economy and 3) McCain will move the country pro-life, Obama pro-abortion.
The interesting thing about the last comment is that it didn't come out strongly during the months before the election. If McCain's strongest asset was his pro-life view, he evidently didn't have widespread support. More people are either pro-abortion, ambivalent or weak on the abortion stance.
Regarding the first argument (change & McCain = Bush), it's obvious that Obama got his message across. However, I would argue that this isn't a real issue. The people calling in to the program couldn't specify what they wanted changed or how McCain was a continuation of Bush.
The economy is the issue that seemed to carry the most weight. There were a few callers who believed that Obama's policies were socialist. There were more who liked his economic ideas. This reminds me of a time when the American people cared more about the economy than anything else. The result was the most morally corrupt president in our 200+ years. The result was a booming economy and a free-wheeling spirit. As a result of that free-wheeling, we've had at least two economic collapses and terrorist attacks (see this list).
Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on US soil. On 9/12/2001, almost everyone believed we would have continued attacks. The attacks overseas have reduced greatly. Why didn't voters think about this and cast their vote accordingly? A year ago, Iraq was a big issue. Today I heard that soldiers are coming home TWO MONTHS earlier than even Bush predicted. It's clear that we will be out of Iraq soon regardless what the next president does. Given these two facts, I think a continuation of Bush's policies wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.
On election day, I listened to Dave Ramsey. For those of you who don't know, he runs a radio program about financial management. He is big on getting out of debt and talks to people daily who are over their heads, looking at bankruptcy or just sick and tired of being sick and tired. He's on the local Christian radio station, and he speaks from a Christian perspective, but he speaks to people of all faiths and people of no faith.
Ramsey's program on Tuesday was devoted to asking people who they voted for and why. If someone said they thought their candidate was better, he wanted to know what issues made them better. In doing so, he discouraged any arguments based on age or race. From my unscientific viewpoint, the calls were pretty much balanced between the two candidates with a sprinkling of calls for third party candidates.
There were three messages that I heard repeated several times: 1) Obama represents a change from the policies of Bush, 2) Obama is better able to handle the economy and 3) McCain will move the country pro-life, Obama pro-abortion.
The interesting thing about the last comment is that it didn't come out strongly during the months before the election. If McCain's strongest asset was his pro-life view, he evidently didn't have widespread support. More people are either pro-abortion, ambivalent or weak on the abortion stance.
Regarding the first argument (change & McCain = Bush), it's obvious that Obama got his message across. However, I would argue that this isn't a real issue. The people calling in to the program couldn't specify what they wanted changed or how McCain was a continuation of Bush.
The economy is the issue that seemed to carry the most weight. There were a few callers who believed that Obama's policies were socialist. There were more who liked his economic ideas. This reminds me of a time when the American people cared more about the economy than anything else. The result was the most morally corrupt president in our 200+ years. The result was a booming economy and a free-wheeling spirit. As a result of that free-wheeling, we've had at least two economic collapses and terrorist attacks (see this list).
Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on US soil. On 9/12/2001, almost everyone believed we would have continued attacks. The attacks overseas have reduced greatly. Why didn't voters think about this and cast their vote accordingly? A year ago, Iraq was a big issue. Today I heard that soldiers are coming home TWO MONTHS earlier than even Bush predicted. It's clear that we will be out of Iraq soon regardless what the next president does. Given these two facts, I think a continuation of Bush's policies wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Anbar province - Peace in Iraq?
With all the activity in the last week or so, one bit of news seems to have slipped away from the forefront. On Monday of this week, American forces turned over control of the province over to the Iraqi army and police force (see here for full article).
Make no mistake, this was a major day, even if it didn't get a lot of press. Anbar had been one of the most violent areas of Iraq. "More than 1,100 U.S. troops died there in some of the biggest battles of the war, including two sweeps of Fallujah in 2004." Now according to the Chicago Tribune article "Anbar is at peace".
You may think that the US should have never entered Iraq. That's your prerogative. But the fact is that we did and now we have an obligation to complete the job that we started. Iraq has been liberated from a dictator. They have written their own constitution, held free elections and are slowly taking back their own country.
In Anbar, they have gotten Sunni and Shia to work together. That's like the Hatfields and McCoys (or a Gamecock and a Tiger). This is major. Years from now, we will look at this as a point in history, when the momentum changed.
The war is long from over. Anbar will certainly see more bloodshed. But we should take note of this transition. We should thank a soldier for his/her participation in the emancipation of this country. The 1100 soldiers who didn't make it home from Anbar should be saluted and their family appreciated.
Make no mistake, this was a major day, even if it didn't get a lot of press. Anbar had been one of the most violent areas of Iraq. "More than 1,100 U.S. troops died there in some of the biggest battles of the war, including two sweeps of Fallujah in 2004." Now according to the Chicago Tribune article "Anbar is at peace".
You may think that the US should have never entered Iraq. That's your prerogative. But the fact is that we did and now we have an obligation to complete the job that we started. Iraq has been liberated from a dictator. They have written their own constitution, held free elections and are slowly taking back their own country.
In Anbar, they have gotten Sunni and Shia to work together. That's like the Hatfields and McCoys (or a Gamecock and a Tiger). This is major. Years from now, we will look at this as a point in history, when the momentum changed.
The war is long from over. Anbar will certainly see more bloodshed. But we should take note of this transition. We should thank a soldier for his/her participation in the emancipation of this country. The 1100 soldiers who didn't make it home from Anbar should be saluted and their family appreciated.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Global War on Terror
Anyone else notice that the Global War on Terror is back in the headlines? For a while, it seems that they wanted to talk about the War in Afghanistan or the War in Iraq, but talking about the Global War on Terror gave Bush too much credit.
This week, Obama was talking about "the central front in the War on Terror". Ok, it's not the "Global" war and he's trying to focus on Afghanistan, and he's still trying to get us out of Iraq. But it's a change in focus for Obama and attitudes in general.
People like the idea of fighting terror, they just don't like the details.
This week, Obama was talking about "the central front in the War on Terror". Ok, it's not the "Global" war and he's trying to focus on Afghanistan, and he's still trying to get us out of Iraq. But it's a change in focus for Obama and attitudes in general.
People like the idea of fighting terror, they just don't like the details.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Memorial day
Is it the beginning of summer? Or just a time for cook-outs? I went to wikipedia for some information on Memorial Day. While it may not always be the best source, it proved a good resource in this case.
Memorial Day "commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country."
Today my family will celebrate by going to a state park and cooking some hamburgers and hot dogs. Then, we'll possibly take a stroll along some of the paths. Down by the lake or up by the dam.
But we'll also stop to remember some of the folks who made this possible. Some people who fought to make us a country, not a territory. Some people who kept the "united" in United States. Some people who went "over there". Some people who fought an agressive man, and kept him from taking over the world. Some people who never understood why, they just did what their country asked. And some who understood and tried to make it safe for you and me.
Memorial Day "commemorates U.S. men and women who perished while in military service to their country."
Today my family will celebrate by going to a state park and cooking some hamburgers and hot dogs. Then, we'll possibly take a stroll along some of the paths. Down by the lake or up by the dam.
But we'll also stop to remember some of the folks who made this possible. Some people who fought to make us a country, not a territory. Some people who kept the "united" in United States. Some people who went "over there". Some people who fought an agressive man, and kept him from taking over the world. Some people who never understood why, they just did what their country asked. And some who understood and tried to make it safe for you and me.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
John McCain's Foreign Policy Speech
I love this part of the elections process. Politicians actually give speeches that mean things. With the internet, you can find their speeches and analyze the words they use. I actually believe that the words mean things and I credit the politician themself for the ideas. Of course, they all use speech writers, but it gives a real glimpse of the candidate.
A little over a week ago, John McCain gave a speech on Foreign Policy (read the full speech here). The speech was fairly long, about 3850 words and he stayed on topic throughout. McCain started out with some background on his family that explained why he says "I detest war". McCain says that "when nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue." This is an attempt to summarize his statements. I'll post my opinion of them in the coming week. I encourage you to read this summary and read his entire speech. If I missed something you think is critical, point it out.
McCain further sets the stage by saying that he is "an idealist, and (he) believe(s) it is possible in our time to make the world we live in another, better, more peaceful place, where our interests and those of our allies are more secure."
McCain quotes President Harry Truman: "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." McCain believes this is as true today as it was then.
"The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman's day. But leadership today means something different ... Today we are not alone. " McCain envisions a "a new global compact -- a League of Democracies"
McCain believes we should close Guantanamo, the place where we keep prisoners from the war on terror. McCain is focusing on building reputation with other countries. And he wants to acknowledge global warming and move beyond the Kyoto Treaty (which was never ratified).
McCain also makes a point out of saying that "more people live under democratic rule in Asia than in any other region of the world. " That's something that I didn't know. He wants to work with NATO to address "the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia" (I looked up the word - it means revengeful). He wants to expand the G-8 to include Brazil and India and doesn't want to "tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks" and to expand aid to Africa and to fight malaria, "the number one killer of African children under the age of five."
"If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom ...It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism"
"We learned through the tragic experience of September 11 that passive defense alone cannot protect us... we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states. "
But he doesn't focus only on the military aspects, "Our goal must be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs." (That was a sound bite that no one picked up).
McCain addressed the current war on terror by saying "Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical in this respect and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy." As a student of history, McCain realizes that "We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet." This policy has been in effect for decades, but it has led us to the failures we have today.
McCain's speech finished by explaining why he's running for president, he wants to "keep the country I love and have served all my life safe." It's clear that he thinks his direction in foreign policy is crucial for the safety of America.
Comments on this speech will come later this week.
A little over a week ago, John McCain gave a speech on Foreign Policy (read the full speech here). The speech was fairly long, about 3850 words and he stayed on topic throughout. McCain started out with some background on his family that explained why he says "I detest war". McCain says that "when nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue." This is an attempt to summarize his statements. I'll post my opinion of them in the coming week. I encourage you to read this summary and read his entire speech. If I missed something you think is critical, point it out.
McCain further sets the stage by saying that he is "an idealist, and (he) believe(s) it is possible in our time to make the world we live in another, better, more peaceful place, where our interests and those of our allies are more secure."
McCain quotes President Harry Truman: "God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose." McCain believes this is as true today as it was then.
"The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman's day. But leadership today means something different ... Today we are not alone. " McCain envisions a "a new global compact -- a League of Democracies"
McCain believes we should close Guantanamo, the place where we keep prisoners from the war on terror. McCain is focusing on building reputation with other countries. And he wants to acknowledge global warming and move beyond the Kyoto Treaty (which was never ratified).
McCain also makes a point out of saying that "more people live under democratic rule in Asia than in any other region of the world. " That's something that I didn't know. He wants to work with NATO to address "the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia" (I looked up the word - it means revengeful). He wants to expand the G-8 to include Brazil and India and doesn't want to "tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks" and to expand aid to Africa and to fight malaria, "the number one killer of African children under the age of five."
"If we are successful in pulling together a global coalition for peace and freedom ...It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism"
"We learned through the tragic experience of September 11 that passive defense alone cannot protect us... we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate, and deny them bases in failed or failing states. "
But he doesn't focus only on the military aspects, "Our goal must be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast majority of moderate Muslims who do not want their future controlled by a minority of violent extremists. In this struggle, scholarships will be far more important than smart bombs." (That was a sound bite that no one picked up).
McCain addressed the current war on terror by saying "Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical in this respect and cannot be viewed in isolation from our broader strategy." As a student of history, McCain realizes that "We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet." This policy has been in effect for decades, but it has led us to the failures we have today.
McCain's speech finished by explaining why he's running for president, he wants to "keep the country I love and have served all my life safe." It's clear that he thinks his direction in foreign policy is crucial for the safety of America.
Comments on this speech will come later this week.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Obama's Speech on Racism - part 3
This is probably my last post on this speech. The first post basically summarized the speech. The second post commented on the first part of the speech (on racism). This part will focus on the last part of the speech, where Obama transitions.
It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.
Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."
Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"
So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."
Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.
2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)
3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.
4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.
As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.
5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.
While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.
It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.
Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."
Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"
So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."
Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.
2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)
3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.
4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.
As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.
5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.
While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.
Monday, February 18, 2008
One Soldier's Story
This was related to me this past weekend by the soldier's uncle. I'm changing the name of the soldier to John. I don't think he would have wanted people to know his real name.
John grew up the son of a soldier. Not just any soldier, a Ranger. These guys are the toughest of the tough. Always assigned tough jobs. And always willing to go in. On Sept 11, 2001, John's father was working for the Pentagon. He wasn't at the Pentagon that day, but he could have been. John saw what happend and announced his intent to join the Army. He wanted to be a Ranger.
Only problem, John was still in high school. His parents told him to finish school, then they talked him in to one year of college. If he finished that year and still wanted to join up, they would agree.
During his first year of college, John did exceptionally well. But he didn't spend time studying. At the end of the school year, he took a summer job, but when summer was over, he decided to enlist. His parents supported him. He went to boot camp and excelled in everything. Then artillery school, then jump school. Again excelling at everything. After that, he went to Ranger school. The fall-out rate in Ranger school is high. There are always more candidates than there is room. But John excelled, and easily made it into Ranger school.
He did a tour of Iraq and came back. His uncle (who told me this story) took him to the airport when it was time to go back. John told his uncle, "You know I'm getting them over there so we don't have to get them over here, right?"
What a testimony to his country. John didn't make it back alive from that tour. He's now at Arlington Memorial Cemetery.
One soldier's story.
John grew up the son of a soldier. Not just any soldier, a Ranger. These guys are the toughest of the tough. Always assigned tough jobs. And always willing to go in. On Sept 11, 2001, John's father was working for the Pentagon. He wasn't at the Pentagon that day, but he could have been. John saw what happend and announced his intent to join the Army. He wanted to be a Ranger.
Only problem, John was still in high school. His parents told him to finish school, then they talked him in to one year of college. If he finished that year and still wanted to join up, they would agree.
During his first year of college, John did exceptionally well. But he didn't spend time studying. At the end of the school year, he took a summer job, but when summer was over, he decided to enlist. His parents supported him. He went to boot camp and excelled in everything. Then artillery school, then jump school. Again excelling at everything. After that, he went to Ranger school. The fall-out rate in Ranger school is high. There are always more candidates than there is room. But John excelled, and easily made it into Ranger school.
He did a tour of Iraq and came back. His uncle (who told me this story) took him to the airport when it was time to go back. John told his uncle, "You know I'm getting them over there so we don't have to get them over here, right?"
What a testimony to his country. John didn't make it back alive from that tour. He's now at Arlington Memorial Cemetery.
One soldier's story.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
I approved this message - National Defense
As I've been promising, I am laying out what I think are critical issues for the presidency of the US. As this thread gets closer to the actual facts, it gets more serious. None of the issues are as serious as national defense.
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.
911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.
My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.
Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.
In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.
Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.
The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.
Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.
Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.
Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.
This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?
Sunday, January 06, 2008
I endorsed this message - Platform building
Last week I announced my candidacy for the president. Then I explained that I was actually just planning to lay out what I thought was important for the candidate I intend to choose.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
War in Iraq
I don't often post about the War in Iraq or the Global War on Terror. Too much like talking about politics.
But I couldn't help but notice a few changes. The British are moving out of Basra, because they are no longer needed. And yesterday, Major General Joseph Fil, a commander of multinational troops in Baghdad told reporters that things had changed in Baghdad.
"The number of attacks against citizens in Baghdad has dropped by almost 80 percent since November, 2006," said Fil.
Now isn't this a good thing? Yes, it's going to take some time and yes the cost has been high. And I predict there will be times of increasing violence. But this is a good thing.
American troops should be pulled out as soon as possible, but we must be careful not to pull out too quickly. We made a mess when we pulled out of Vietnam, we shouldn't repeat one of our past mistakes.
But I couldn't help but notice a few changes. The British are moving out of Basra, because they are no longer needed. And yesterday, Major General Joseph Fil, a commander of multinational troops in Baghdad told reporters that things had changed in Baghdad.
"The number of attacks against citizens in Baghdad has dropped by almost 80 percent since November, 2006," said Fil.
Now isn't this a good thing? Yes, it's going to take some time and yes the cost has been high. And I predict there will be times of increasing violence. But this is a good thing.
American troops should be pulled out as soon as possible, but we must be careful not to pull out too quickly. We made a mess when we pulled out of Vietnam, we shouldn't repeat one of our past mistakes.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Freedomswatch part 2
I got an email tonight that said that NBC has agreed to accept the Freedomswatch ads. (Last Friday I posted a note about the NBC refusal. See my previous post here.)
NBC said "We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
See the full article here.
I don't often do petitions, and now I'm wondering about the sanity of signing a petition asking for ads....
NBC said "We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."
See the full article here.
I don't often do petitions, and now I'm wondering about the sanity of signing a petition asking for ads....
Friday, December 07, 2007
http://www.freedomswatch.org/ - TV ads
NBC refuses to run some ads produced by Freedom's Watch. The reason they give is that the organization depicts it's web address at the end and the web site has some potentially sensitive issues.
Let's be clear. The ads that were requested are NOT politically oriented. They simply say "thank you" to the soldiers. Some also wish the soldiers a merry Christmas. At the end is a link to the freedomswathch.org website. You can view the ads here. If you disagree, please let me know and explain why. If you agree, sign the petition.
The website does show other TV ads which may cause some people to disagree (these are NOT part of the current dispute). Basically, it's an anti MoveOn.org commercial. These ads clearly voice the opinion that the War in Iraq is related to the War on Terror which is related to 9/11. Now some will disagree with that. I will not voice my opinion in this post, because I think it's not relevant.
What is relevant is that NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air ads that thank our soldiers. The ads are being shown by CNN and FoxNews.
(F0r the record, being a market-driven philosophy based individual, I believe NBC has the right to refuse any ad. But having the right, doesn't make it right)
Let's be clear. The ads that were requested are NOT politically oriented. They simply say "thank you" to the soldiers. Some also wish the soldiers a merry Christmas. At the end is a link to the freedomswathch.org website. You can view the ads here. If you disagree, please let me know and explain why. If you agree, sign the petition.
The website does show other TV ads which may cause some people to disagree (these are NOT part of the current dispute). Basically, it's an anti MoveOn.org commercial. These ads clearly voice the opinion that the War in Iraq is related to the War on Terror which is related to 9/11. Now some will disagree with that. I will not voice my opinion in this post, because I think it's not relevant.
What is relevant is that NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air ads that thank our soldiers. The ads are being shown by CNN and FoxNews.
(F0r the record, being a market-driven philosophy based individual, I believe NBC has the right to refuse any ad. But having the right, doesn't make it right)
Monday, August 13, 2007
NPR is not known as the most conservative radio station in the US. That's why I wanted to reference this program titled "Cautious Optimism on Behalf of the Iraq Surge". You can listen to it here.
I heard other references to writer Kenneth Pollack's op-ed in The New York Times, titled "A War We Might Just Win." (bytheyway, he had trouble with the word "win"). Pollack spoke out against the war early on, but in his editorial, he argues that U.S. troops are finally making progress in Iraq.
If you don't want to listen online, you can read some of his comments in an article titled "Pollack: ‘Surge’ Producing Real Progress in Iraq" at this webite.
Interesting reading...
I heard other references to writer Kenneth Pollack's op-ed in The New York Times, titled "A War We Might Just Win." (bytheyway, he had trouble with the word "win"). Pollack spoke out against the war early on, but in his editorial, he argues that U.S. troops are finally making progress in Iraq.
If you don't want to listen online, you can read some of his comments in an article titled "Pollack: ‘Surge’ Producing Real Progress in Iraq" at this webite.
Interesting reading...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)