skip to main |
skip to sidebar
All last week attention was paid to the one year mark commemorating the passing of Michael Jackson, but where is the same type of remembrance for Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl who was captured by the Taliban one year ago today. Few if any media affiliates will even mention it, as all attention will be spent on the Gulf oil spil and the confirmation hearing of both General David Petreaus and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. But what about Pfc. Bergdahl!
In the year since his capture only three videos have been released by the Taliban, but so far no one has actually seen him or spoke with him. Has the International Red Cross visited to check on his safety and condition? Everyone seems more concerned with how detainees are treated at Guantanamo Bay, but are American military personnel any different?
This weekend our country will celebrate the birth of the nation, and all the majority of the people will be thinking about is parade’s, barbeques, swimming, having fun with family and friends. As a nation, do we think of the thousands of men and women who are serving in harm’s way to protect our way of life. Having served in Iraq and Afghanistan I always think of friends currently serving in those countries in the sweltering heat, doing the work that most Americans are oblivious to.
Every fourth of July I reflect back on all those individuals who gave their lives for the cause of freedom and the sacrifices their families made on the later of liberty. Why is it as a nation we revere entertainers and athletes has hero’s but barely show a ripple for the real hero’s of this country; the men and women who serve in the armed forces of the United States.
Today, we should be united in support for the Bergdahl family and all they are going through waiting for word on the safety of their son. Let’s take the time and remember PFC Bergdahl and pray for his safe return!
Two highly publicized confirmation hearings have griped Washington as the United States Senate conducts confirmation hearings to confirm Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and General David Petraeus as the ground commander in Afghanistan.
Right now Supreme Court nominee Helen Kagan is being grilled by Senators over her decision while serving as the Dean of Harvard Law school, to briefly bar military recruiters from the school’s career services office because of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays. The decision was reversed after the federal government was threatening to withdraw federal funding.
The second contentious hearing is beginning today to confirm General David Petraeus as the new ground commander in Afghanistan, replacing General Stanley McChrystal, who was relieved of command last week after derogatory comments were made about senior administration officials.
Both nominees are facing tough questions from Senators, as nominee Kagan has to defend her decision baring military recruiters from Harvard. Gen. Petraeus is answering questions from wavering Democrats expressing doubt on the overall mission in Afghanistan.
The questions being asked of nominee Kagan should be asked of all Americans; do we really support our men and women in uniform, but bar military recruiters from college campuses? How many of us really know the true history of Afghanistan, or do we just repeat what we hear from media pundits?
Robert Byrd, the longest serving member of Congress in history, who had a masterful knowledge of the institution which he served to shape the rules of the Senate and to serve the interests of his state, has died early this morning. Hospitalized last week for what was thought to be heat exhaustion, turned into more serious complications.
Senator Byrd had a colorful past with the most memorable act of his colorful life in filibustering the landmarked 1964 Civil Rights Act, which reflected his separatist views. His views moderated over time, which then placed him in the party hierarchy.
The passing of Senator Byrd will now pose challenges for the president as he tries to pass his much touted Financial Reform Legislation. The question of who replaces Sen. Byrd remains a bit murky! West Virginia has a Democratic governor, who can appoint a successor, who can then fill the remaining two years of his term, but that is if Sen. Byrd died after July 3—or less than 30 months left on his term. With 30 days left the law stipulates that an interim successor be taped to fill in until an election can be held.
Even this leaves it ambiguous on this point; Here is the exact wording from West Virginia code: “If the unexpired term of any office is for a longer period than [30 months], the appointment is until a successor to the office has timely filed a certificate of candidacy, has been nominated at the primary election next following such timely filing and has thereafter been elected and qualified to fill the unexpired term.”
This has huge ramifications for pending legislation and it makes it easier for the Republicans to mount a successful filibuster, especially considering the president’s Supreme Court nominee begins hearings today.
This will be a long hot summer!
By selecting General David Petraeus as the next commander in Afghanistan, president Obama will minimize the turmoil sparked by his replacing General Stanley McChrystal, who has been the architect of his surge plan. Compared to the recent controversy surrounding Gen. MChrystal, the president gets a steady and reassuring leader in Gen. Petraeus, who knows the region and the leaders that he will be dealing with.
"War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or a president," Obama said in a Rose Garden announcement. "And as difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for our national security."
The biggest problem the president faces is not just replacing one general for a seasoned leader in Gen. Petraeus, but to get his foreign policy team on the same playing field. If President Obama is going to ask Gen. Petraeus to fix his Afghan strategy, much like he rescued Iraq from the brink, then the president’s whole foreign policy team needs a shake up, or they better wake up.
As the president states yesterday, “ I've just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. Doing so is not an option, but an obligation. I welcome debate among my team, but I won't tolerate division. All of us have personal interests; all of us have opinions. Our politics often fuel conflict, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another, and to our troops who are in harm's way, and to our country.”
The president is great at making speeches, but will his action speak louder than his words! If the fighting doesn't stop in his foreign policy team then all he did was set up Gen. Petraeus for failure!
President Obama has decided to fire his embattled Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal and replace him with Central Command Commander General David Petraeus. The president has now fired the last two Afghan commanders, but the Gen.McChrystal firing has more to do with his comments, and those of his aides, in a wildly reported article in Rolling Stone magazine that showed contempt for senior Obama officials.
By appointing Gen. Petraeus, the president is getting the architect of the Iraqi surge that proved successful in turning that country around from a brutal insurgency, which brought it back from the brink of disaster. Gen. Petraeus has extensive experience in the Middle East region which includes Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This change in leadership in Afghanistan is ironic as then Senator Obama was against the surge strategy articulated by Gen. Petraeus, which proved successful, and now is appointing the general to implement his own surge strategy in Afghanistan.
The question that still lingers is what does this do to the president’s policy in Afghanistan? This one could not have come a worse time for the president, with the Gulf Oil spill, the economy, and the looming mid-term elections ahead.
Its looking to be along summer!
President Obama ordered General Stanley McChrystal back to Washington after the general and his aides made disparaging remarks of some top Obama officials. This places the president in a tough position with the gulf Oil spill, a stagnant economy, and the mid-term elections looming on the horizon. Probably the last thing he needed.
The president is left with two choices, he can overlook these remarks, or fire his chosen commander at a crucial point in the Afghan war. No matter what the president decides he is facing a difficult decision, as thousands of troops are positioning themselves for the long awaited military offensive into the Kandahar, which is the spiritual home of the Taliban.
Whatever course of action the president chooses will have far reaching ramifications not only in Washington, but in Afghanistan and with our NATO allies. The president is facing stiff opposition from members of his own party who want a swift de-escalation of the war and to bring the troops home.
The questions that everyone is asking is what will the president do?
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, has been summoned to Washington by President Obama to explain remarks he made in a magazine interview regarding administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy.
This week’s addition of Rolling Stone magazine has the story post titled “The Runaway General”. All this comes at time of growing congressional opposition of our continued commitment to the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Many of the anonymous quotes were by Gen. McChrystal and his aides and come at a difficult time, as the presidents Afghan surge is receiving negative support from the his own party.
President Obama appointed Gen. McChrystal to lead Afghan military operations after having fired Gen. David McKiernan, the first time a general had been relieved from a war time command since Gen. Douglas MacArthur was fired by President Truman during the Korean War.
Many of the aides that have been criticized will be at the meeting between the president and Gen. McChrystal. This in fact will not be the first time that the president has reprimanded the general. Last year the president dressed down the general over remarks he made in London which he criticized those who wanted a scaled back effort in Afghanistan, including Vice President Joseph Biden who advocated this approach.
Tomorrow meeting will very interesting and very tense; we will have to just wait and see.
With the national media attention concentrated on the Gulf Oil spill, two news stories went unnoticed by most media affiliates. Yesterday the New York Times reported on government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which taxpayers have bailed out to the tune of $145 billion and growing, the amount each day, with speculation that it could reach $400 billion.
The other story, the Washington Post reported how a municipality in Pennsylvania is heavily in debt predicated by extravagant borrowing and spending. This one act is not isolated just to Pennsylvania, but is being repeated across America.
States that are facing huge budget deficits in order to balance their budgets are calling for deep spending cuts and higher taxes. All the while the nation is facing the worst unemployment numbers in decades. The lavish spending and reckless borrowing is now coming due, unfortunately at the expense of the taxpayers.
America is in for one long wild ride, but if we wait for Washington we will be waiting for a long time.
All the debate centered on Congressional hearings, where BP CEO Tony Hayward will be grilled on his companies handling of the Gulf Oil spill. But another hearing had been going on which has equally been contentious; military progress in Afghanistan.
Military and defense leaders have complained about the negative perceptions of war that’s taken hold in Congress without giving the military the chance to complete its mission. Congress is growing skeptical of the war in Afghanistan and the mounting casualties, with polls showing that Americans have little appetite for an open-ended commitment there.
The debate is coming six months after President Obama increased the number of forces in Afghanistan as part of his surge strategy, but with a promise to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011. That pledge helped ease Democratic complainants of a long term commitment in Afghanistan, but they are now concerned with how it will be perceived by their constituents come November.
It seems hypocritical of Democrats as they has a different tune in 2008, when they kept repeating we should have been focusing on Afghanistan all along. Even the president campaigned that he would focus on Afghanistan, well I guess promise's made while campaigning are forgotten once elected.
To bad each side has its eye on a different set of priorities. Congress, with the mid-term elections, and the military on the mission in Afghanistan.
With all the news coverage centered around the president’s address to the nation and how the government will respond to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf, one news story has relegated to second tier status; the war in Afghanistan. Gen. David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East spoke before the Senate Armed Service Committee to reassure senators on the progress of the war in Afghanistan.
Congress is growing increasingly concerned and starting to waver over increase in casualties the past few weeks now that all of the surge forces are in place. The military leadership have let it be known from the beginning that casualties will spike before they begin to go down. We witnessed the same thing during the Iraq surge. Congress and the military establishment have different time schedules. One has its eye on the situation in Afghanistan, the other has its eye on the mid-term election.
The question for both Congress and the military is the looming date of July 2011, when President Obama stated in his address to the nation at West Point Military Academy that we would begin transferring authority to Afghan forces and begin our withdrawal. That one announcement has hampered efforts in Afghanistan to build trust in our Afghan partners that we would not abandon them like we did after the Russian withdrawal.
Will we do the same thing that we have done so many times in the past; cut and run when the going gets tough! Only time will tell!
Tonight in his first nationally televised address from the Oval Office, President Obama will speak to the nation regarding the Gulf Oil spill and the government’s response to cleaning up the largest oil spill in U.S. history. The 15-minute speech will allow the president to outline how the government will respond to this ecological disaster and at the same time push for a new comprehensive national energy strategy.
The oil spill that began on April 20th has left an indefinable mark on the administration as the president tries to gain lost momentum on how he has handled the spill since the tragic explosion which claimed the lives of eleven oil workers. This address has sever ramifications for the president, as many from both parties have been dismayed on how the president and his administration have handled this crisis.
In recent weeks the president has made numerous trip to the Gulf Region and will return to give this pivotal address and outline his new energy strategy. We will have to wait and see what the president says!
The national debt is over $13 trillion dollars and Congress is grappling with reforming the financial regulatory system to prevent another meltdown. But surprise, the federal bailout to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continues. The cost of fixing both mortgage lenders will be at least $160 billion and is expect to rise to almost $1 trillion dollars, which would represent the largest bailout in U.S. history..
The financial reform legislation that is meandering through Congress leaves out reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though 80 percent is owned by U.S. taxpayers. The mortgage giants that guarantee three quarters of all U.S. home loans have been bailed out already to the tune of $145 billion. This surpasses the amount spent on American International Group Inc, General Motors or Citigroup, who are all repaying their debts.
Washington just doesn't get! Why all the debate over financial reform if you leave out the main culprit of the financial meltdown! Who is benefiting from the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It sure isn't the taxpayers!
Recent week’s news coverage has focused on the Gulf Oil spill or the financial crisis that has gripped Europe and the United States. Whatever happened to coverage of Afghanistan? Currently a surge of U.S. forces into the region the past few months has led to more causalities as General Stanley McChrystal, the ground commander, initiates his counterinsurgency plan.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a public warning that public opinion in the United States would not tolerate the loss of more military personnel in Afghanistan if a strategic breakthrough is not achieved by the end of the year.
Many issues dominate the news, but let's remember that the nation is at war and that service personnel are still fighting a very capable enemy in Afghanistan.
The armed forces of the United States are engaging the enemy in some of the most unforgivable terrain in the world and doing an incredible job.
With U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan more coverage should be given to what is going on not only when there is a bombing or the deaths of service personnel. What happened to coverage of the missing soldier in Afghanistan come this Fourth of July weekend will be spending one full year in captivity. Our troops deserve better!
The primary ends today in many states across the nation, for anxious challengers and incumbents the day of reckoning is at hand. Today, we will learn if the anger of the voters will play out. If it’s any indicator of previous elections the past few months it looks to be a long night for incumbents!
No matter how the votes are tallied the American people are in a hostile mood and want answers to the nation’s problems and not the words from duplicities we have been receiving from politicians of both parties.
The nation has problems of historic proportions and all we get is partisanship of the political parties who only enrich Democrat and Republican operatives at the expense of ordinary Americans. Voters want answers now and are in a foul mood if they don’t get the problems solved; politicians will be sent packing!
The Democratic Party came into power after the corrupt policies of the Republican Party, but all we got was another bankrupt political party more concerned in pushing a far left leaning agenda and enriching its own supporters. Basically America replaced one corrupt party with another!
President Obama came into office with a growing public support under the banner “Change we can believe in,” unfortunately his vision was government takeover of the economy. His policies have led to economic ruin, with the cure worse than the disease.
Washington doesn’t understand the private sector is the engine of economic growth not the government. Help small business and you help America. It seems both political parties are more concerned with helping their corporate sponsors than helping the American people.
To change government the American people have to get informed and take part and stop believing in snake oil salesman who tell them what they want to hear instead of what they know to be true.
Friday the stock market drop considerably when the Labor Department released May Unemployment numbers that 417,000 jobs were added but only around 41, 000 were in the private sector. The vast majority of the jobs were temporary hires for the census.
What will happen the next few months when the census workers are let go as this was only a seasonal job and not long term employment? The market reacted as it sees the nation’s economy is still in perilous condition as most employment is coming from the public sector and not from the private sector where jobs are most needed to pull the nation out of this economic misery.
The president and Democrats are in real trouble if the unemployment numbers stay above nine percent going into November’s mid-term election. Right now there really is not much they can do as it takes time to affect and change to economy, even if they did something it would not be felt until after the mid-term elections.
This will be a long hot summer for Democrats and the especially the president.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spread and now threatening the Florida coastline; at the same time BP is trying to cap the oil spill deep below the surface. The Obama Administration has taken extensive criticisms from all sides in his bungled attempt to stem the flow of oil and his mishandling of the cleanup.
No one expects the president to cap the well himself, but the way he went about this disaster in his cavalier manner left the impression that he wasn’t in charge. Even administration officials gave conflicting answers and kept reiterating the theme that they have been in charge since day one.
If that was the case then they were responsible or gave approval for every decision made by BP. This includes the decision by BP to deploy the chemical Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico to break the oil into smaller particles thus making it easier to degrade. Eventually this had to be scraped.
The administration’s response seemed to be clueless as was the remarks at the his press conference when he stated that he was not sure if the Elizabeth Birnbuam, Director of the Minerals Management Service was fired or resigned. Even after he continually stated that he was deeply involved from day one.
The longer this continues, the longer the spill keeps flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, the perception will persist that this administration is way over his head and not a good place to be as he heads into the mid-term elections.
The immigration debate rages on in contentious demonstrations and protests across the country. The real issue regarding immigration is not even debated or being discussed by Washington; what is Mexico doing to provide for its own citizens! You cannot discuss immigration reform without including Mexico in the discussion, unfortunately the president and Democrats only cares how this places out in Novembers mid-term election.
Remember what President Felipe Caldron of Mexico stated to a joint session of Congress when he denounced Arizona’s immigration law saying, "It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement...core values we all care about are breached," Democrats stood up and applauded him.
The following exchange between CNN's Wolf Blitzer and President Calderon:
BLITZER: All right. Let's talk a little bit about Mexico's laws. I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. Is that true?
CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore. We derogate or we erased that part of the law. Actually, the legal immigration is not a -- is not a crime in Mexico. Not anymore, since one year ago. And that is the reason why we are trying to establish our own comprehensive public policy talking about, for instance, immigrants coming from Central America...
BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?
CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?
And if they explain...
BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.
CALDERON: Yes.
BLITZER: But once they're in...
CALDERON: But not -- but not in -- if -- once they are inside the -- inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is [not] a crime anymore in Mexico.
BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?
CALDERON: It's not a crime.
BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job...
CALDERON: No, no.
BLITZER: They can work.
CALDERON: If -- if somebody do that without permission, we send back -- we send back them.
BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?
CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.
BLITZER: I ask the questions because there's an argument that people in Arizona and New Mexico and -- and Texas, they say they're only trying to do in their states what Mexico itself does in the southern part of Mexico.
CALDERON: I know. And that is a very powerful argument. But that is one of the reasons why we are trying to change our policy. And let me be frank, Wolf. In the past, Mexican authorities were in a -- in a -- in an unfortunate way in the treatment for immigrants. But now we are changing the policy. We changed already the law. And that is different today. We are trying to write a new story, talking about immigrants, especially coming from Central American countries.
Why is it different when Mexican citizens enter the United States? The real difference is the fact the second largest revenue source for the Mexican economy outside of oil is money sent by immigrants in the U.S. Its time Washington start forcing Mexico to help its own people, this is the only way you stem the flow of immigration to the U.S.
On Friday the House of Representatives voted to end the controversial Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that allows homosexuals to serve openly, but the legislation gives the Pentagon the chance to finish its study which will be completed in December.
The question that I have is not on the merits of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or repealing this ban is why now? If the President truly wanted to end this controversial policy he could have done long ago with an executive order, much like President Truman did when he issued Executive Order 9981 that desegregated the armed forces.
The question remains why President Obama didn’t issue his own executive order ending this policy if he truly believed it was wrong and discriminatory. If he feared a backlash from the military then he failed to understand the basic tenets of the military. We may disagree with political policy but in the end we swear allegiance to the constitution and would carry out any order or direction by the President of the United States.
The real reason is plain and simple and has everything to do with Novembers mid-term elections. The president realizes like most political observers that the mid-term elections if continued trends persist will be disastrous for the Democratic Party. The president needs to galvanize his base supporters and the one group who vote heavily for Democrats; is the gay community. They already are angry with Democrats for not ending this ban and see the president as caving into what he had promised while he campaigned for the presidency.
This is a president who says one thing while campaigning but act in a different manner as president. We see the same thing with regard to immigration reform and a host of other issues. You can’t just talk leadership you have to act as a leader and this president has failed on so many levels.
