skip to main |
skip to sidebar
With six U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan it brings the total for July to at least 66 thus making it the deadliest month for American forces since the war began in 2001.
President Obama since taking office in January 2009, has ordered a surge of forces of 17,000 troops in the spring of 2009, and last December added an additional 30,000 as part of his comprehensive surge strategy. Military commanders have stated that with the additional forces being added into Afghanistan there would be a spike in casualties as was the case during the Iraq surge but would eventually come down as the counterinsurgency strategy began to take hold.
Since the surge strategy went into effect numerous changes have taken place in Afghanistan. First being the replacement of the overall commander General Stanley McChrystal being replaced by General David Petraeus who had made disparaging comments about senior administration officials, the second with Wikileaks releasing thousands of classified documents to various news organizations.
The administration needs to begin communicating with the American people and end the rift in his foreign policy team over Afghan policy. Having Vice President Joseph Biden speaking on Afghanistan is not a wise course of action as he gives conflicting and contradictory analysis of U.S. strategy. The Vice President is also part of a group of foreign policy advisers to the president not in favor of the surge strategy the president initiated in December.
President Obama has to start telling the American people why we are in Afghanistan, and what the strategy is. Since the surge strategy he rarely speaks about Afghanistan or talks in terms of winning. to many it signals that his heart is not in the fight and sends a wrong message to our adversaries.
Failure in Afghanistan will only embolden our adversaries and threaten the security of this nation.
New government data just released shows the pace of economic growth has slowed in the second quarter of this year. The Commerce Department reported the gross domestic product rose to just 2.4 percent down from the 3.7 percent growth in the first quarter. The anemic economic growth has placed the economy as a threat to the overall national security of the U.S. with its dwindling tax revenues and soaring national debt.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated on numerous occasions that the national debt is a threat to the national security of this nation, unless action is taken will begin to undermine the security of this country.
Consumer spending has lagged and many are fearful of where the economy is heading. One only has to look at the the dismal news emanating from the various states regarding their state's budget's. Policy out of Washington has had a chilling effect on business and as reported in a previous email businesses are holding on to almost two trillion dollars in assets unwilling to spend fearful of what the future holds.
Right now Congress and the president are wrangling over letting the Bush tax cuts expire or keep some and let others expire. Either way a tax increase is coming and this will have a dramatic effect on the fragile economy.
Washington and the State's across the nation need to keep in mind that small businesses are reeling from policies enacted by both governmental entities. Small businesses account for almost 80% of all jobs in America and if you want to jump start the U.S. economy help small business. If we don't then the economy will just sputter along!
It will be interesting to see what July's unemployment numbers will be!
Arizona’s much touted and controversial immigration law takes effect today, but without parts of the law deemed offensive to many immigration supporters. Yesterday a U.S. federal judge blocked most of the contested provisions of Arizona’s law, which only ratchets up the intense political debate as the nation heads into Novembers mid-term elections.
Arizona passed its contested immigration law when Governor Jan Brewer signed it into law in April over Washington’s failed efforts at curbing the flow of illegal immigration into the United States. The last time Washington attempted to tackle the controversial immigration issues was back in 2007, when then President Bush tried in vain to get comprehensive immigration reform, but ran into intense opposition from both political parties. The key sticking point then was the same issue facing President Obama today; amnesty for the close to twelve million illegal immigrants in the country today.
The president placed himself into the debate while running for president when he was interviewed on Univision on May 08, 2008 stating, “What I can guarantee is that, during my first year [in office] we will have an immigration reform bill.” Hispanic voters voted close to sixty percent for President Obama and expected that he would fulfill his campaign promise. That promise has been shelved by the president and currently there is no comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress pending or any planned legislation in the future.
This has infuriated Hispanic leaders with many voicing public animosity toward the president which can have a chilling affect in November where the Democrats will face an angry electorate who expected change but received something entirely different.
November will be a very interesting month.
A federal judge today blocked the most controversial part of Arizona’s immigration law, where law enforcement officials were required to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. This was a victory for opponents of this measure.
The overall law will take effect Thursday, but without the most contentious part which had angered opponents of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The judge also put on hold parts of the law which would require immigrants to carry their papers at all time, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens, because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
Judge Bolton ruled that the controversial elements will be placed on hold until the courts can resolve the constitutionality of the various controversial aspects of Arizona’s immigration law. The rest of the law goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. on July 29th.
The ruling by Judge Bolton only makes the issue more contentious heading into the November mid-term election, with each side staking a position on how voter will react to the ruling and their position on immigration reform.
The real issue that is not even being debated is what is Mexico doing to improve the lives of its own people. A few months ago the President of Mexico came to the U.S., spoke to a joint Session of Congress and condemned Arizona’s immigration policy. No one in Washington or the media asked him or President Obama about what Mexico is doing to improve the lives of its own citizens.
If you want to stop the flow immigrants from Mexico; improve their economic lives across the border. Until then you will never stop it!
The House of Representatives provided $37 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan which included funding to Vietnam war veterans exposed to Agent Orange and $3 billion for Haiti Relief efforts bringing the total to $58 billion dollars. The contentious vote signaled a divide between supporters and opponents of the continued war in Afghanistan.
The support came with strong backing from Republicans, despite the leak of thousands of classified documents by Wikileaks to various news organizations over the weekend. The spending bill had passed the Senate in May, but was being held up by Congressional Democrats who insisted including billions of dollars in domestic spending to help the ailing economy and to help preserve teacher's jobs.
The partisan divide is deepening as the nation draws closer to Novembers mid-term election, and both political parties are staking out territory on how this will play to the voters. The president is in a precarious situation, as the base of his party is extremely resistant to his surge of troops into Afghanistan, and Democrats want an end to combat operations in the region.
The biggest impediment of the president's war strategy is the date he articulated in December, that U.S. forces will begin withdrawing in July 2011. No matter what he states, this has always been based on conditions on the ground. To the people of Afghanistan this is a hallow jester of commitment, they remember the U.S. left before after the Russians pulled out in 1989, then left them to the chaotic aftermath.
The president needs to start articulating why the U.S. needs to be in Afghanistan? His administration needs to speak with one voice, not conflicting voices, or the U.S. will face the consequences!
When Wikileaks released over 92,000 classified documents this week, it became clear after defense and intelligence officials scoured over the documents, that nothing new was learned that already hadn’t been known before. We already knew of unreliable partner with many Afghan and Pakistani officials, plus elements of Pakistan’s intelligence agency had been aiding the Taliban.
This hardly resembles the “Pentagon Papers” which were top secret studies by the Department of Defense, charting the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The document was turned over to the New York Times which highlighted the manner in which the U.S. became involved in Vietnam.
With the disclosure of the documents by Wikileaks, it highlights the debate between those who believe we should continue our involvement in Afghanistan and those who believe the U.S. should end involvement in Afghanistan as a war we can’t win.
This places the Obama Administration in a precarious situation, as his administration is split among top level senior advisors on his strategy of sending more troops to the embattled country. Last month, Gen. McChrystal was fired for his candor in speaking out against the rift he felt with the administrations senior foreign policy team.
The president has to make a decision; is he going to see the surge through, or is he going to make a half hearted attempt? The president rarely has made any statements regarding Afghanistan since he sent additional forces into Afghanistan back in December. The time is now for the president to make his case to the American people while we are needed in Afghanistan. Failure here is not an option!
Thousands of classified files on the Afghan war were leaked to the media by the group Wikileaks.org, which gives extreme detail on military operations faced by U.S. military personnel. Over 90,000 classified documents were released that amounts to the largest breach of information in U.S. history. Wikileaks gave the documents to the New York times, the British newspaper the Guardian, and the German magazine Der Spiegal, on the condition that they not be published until Sunday night.
The massive document leaks covers the period from January 2004 through December 2009, right before the president began the push to add additional 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The documents go into detail of gaining Taliban strength, the disillusionment of the civilian population, and the frustration that the troops feel of fighting a under resourced war.
Details also include the revelation that the Taliban now have portable heat seeking missiles that can shoot down U.S. helicopters, and close ties by Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. The documents reveal Pakistan’s intelligence agency is actually coordinating with insurgents in conducting attacks against U.S. forces.
The question is how did Wikileaks get these documents in the first place? Was this the same as when a U.S. Army soldier was detained in May charging him with leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, of footage taken by cameras on a Apache helicopter showing the killing of civilians, including two Reuters news officials? Their needs to be a thorough investigation immediately on how the breach of classified material came into the hands of Wikileaks.
On July 16th, a federal Judge ruled against an Act that previously made it a crime to lie about valiant service and having won a metal. In his ruling, judge Blackburn ruled in favor of the First Amendment, arguing that the accused's actions were in the intreats of freedom of speech. The case was brought up when Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star, but the military had no record of said service. He was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.
The presiding U.S. District Judge, Robert Blackburn, dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.
Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., who sponsored the Stolen Valor Act in the House, predicted that the decision would be overturned on appeal.
"This is an issue of fraud, plain and simple!" Salazar said in a written release. "The individuals who violate this law are those who knowingly portray themselves as pillars of the community for personal and monetary gain."
I am not sure on what grounds Judge Robert Blackburn based his decision, but I thought fraud was defined as intending to defraud someone for personal or private gain. This is exactly what Rick Strandlof appeared to do. What about the harm it does to all the true heroes who earned their medals the hard way, by shedding their blood or giving their life for this country, just to have someone misrepresent themselves for personnel and private gain.
This is a blatant slap in the face to all veterans and patriotic American citizens.
It’s been a months since General David Petraeus took the reins of control of all military operations in Afghanistan, according to some senior military officials, who have concluded that setbacks in the war effort this year were not the result of the strategy, but of flaws in how it has been implemented.
Officials have stated that Gen. Petraeus is conducting a review of the conflict and plans to utilize many of the same tactics that helped turn around the war in Iraq. The officials have noted as well, that Gen. McChrystal placed too much attention on hunting down Taliban leaders, at the expense of the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, which focuses on protecting civilians and bolstering popular support for the government. Supporters of Gen. McChrystal dispute that assessment, dismissing any notion that there were flaws in how he fought the war.
The key to any successful counterinsurgency operation is separating the insurgents from the civilian population. With mounting political pressure in the U.S. to begin to bring the troops home, this will be a difficult task to accomplish.
Last month, President Obama fired Gen. McChrystal over disparaging remarks made about senior administration officials. Unfortunately Gen. Petraeus' job will be different in Afghanistan, as he will not have an ambassador that is supportive of his efforts like Amb. Ray Crocker. The current Ambassador Gen., Karl Eikenberry, has been dismissive of the surge plan in Afghanistan and had been a thorn in Gen. Mchrystal’s side until he was relieved. Also, no one knows what role Special Assistant Richard Holbrooke, who has been critical of the surge strategy, will be playing.
If the president’s plan is to be successful, he needs to remove these two individuals and replace them with officials who believe in the surge strategy, or else he is setting up Gen. Petraeus for failure.
The third part of the Washington Post investigation delves deeper into the concentration of the various intelligence apparatus which engulfs the Washington D.C. area. Fort Meade is one such area, with its concentration of many of the intelligence capabilities of the nation, which checks on those that wish to do the nation harm.
Fort Meade, Md., is the capital of Top Secret America -- an alternative geography of the United States defined by the concentration of top-secret government organizations, and the companies that do work for them. It is the largest of a dozen such clusters across the United States that are the nerve centers of Top Secret America and its 854,000 workers.
The Washington D.C. area is the hub, within which all of these secret agencies and companies operate, without the accountability or oversight that we would expect. One such agency is The National Security Agency, just up the beltway in Maryland, with its buildings occupying 6.3 million square feet - about the size of the Pentagon - and are surrounded by 112 acres of parking spaces. As massive as that might seem, documents indicate that the NSA is only going to get bigger: 10,000 more workers over the next 15 years; $2 billion to pay for just the first phase of expansion; an overall increase in size that will bring its building space throughout the Fort Meade cluster to nearly 14 million square feet.
How effective has our intelligence been over the years? What are we getting with this massive bureaucracy, do we even know? Maybe now is the time to start asking?
The Washington Post released the second part of its comprehensive investigation into the national security apparatus of the United States, and like the bombshell it unleashed yesterday, this one also has the nation contemplating...are we getting our monies worth?
What started as a temporary fix in response to the terrorist attacks, has turned into a dependency that calls into question whether the federal workforce includes too many people obligated to shareholders, rather than the public interest -- and whether the government is still in control of its most sensitive activities. In interviews last week, both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta said they agreed with such concerns.
Contractors are one element which affects the intelligence capabilities of this country, but the Department of Defense has its own contractor problems. The Post's estimate the 265,000 contractors doing top-secret work was vetted by several high-ranking intelligence officials who approved of The Post's methodology. The newspaper's Top Secret America database includes 1,931 companies that perform work at the top-secret levels. More than a quarter of them - 533 - came into being after 2001, and others that already existed have expanded greatly. Most are thriving even as the rest of the United States struggles with bankruptcies, unemployment and foreclosures.
The nation has to ask, are we getting the most bang for our buck, or are we just spending for perceived security?
For more than a century, the U.S. was the largest energy consumer, but not any more! China has become the world’s largest energy consumer. This change in energy consumption will have strategic consequences for the United States and its foreign policy approach.
Over the past few years China’s rapid growth has fueled its voracious appetite for energy by perusing energy deals with some of the worst regimes in the world. In its desire to fuel its expanding economy, China cares little for who it deals with, only that it obtains the energy needs that will continue its rapid economic growth. The current situation with Iran and the sanctions imposed was predicated on not hurting China’s economic interests, or more importantly, the energy it receives from Iran.
This same energy policy has made coal China’s largest energy source, having surpassed the U.S. in 2007, with it now being the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases. As recently as 2007, China was still consuming 41% of the world's coal, and as of 2005, nearly 63% of the nation's energy demand was coal. Demand for coal is only projected to go up from here — in a recent report from the Pew Center for Climate Change, China's usage could be triple its coal power capacity used in 2005, to projected numbers in 2030.
As Congress debates Cap & Trade legislation curtailing U.S. energy consumption, it's also pushing Kyoto style United Nations Climate Change legislation that exempts China and other nations but places an undue burden on the U.S. economy. The U.S. needs a comprehensive energy policy that ensures the national security of the U.S. is being met, not ideological partisan energy policy.
The Washington Post dropped a bombshell today when it unleashed a two year investigation which reveled U.S. intelligence has grown so large and pervasive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, or how many programs exists within it.
The investigation's other findings include:
* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counter terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.
* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.
* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.
* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.
* Analysts, who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying' share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.
This investigation has opened the eyes of many to ask, are we getting our monies worth with U.S. intelligence?
Thursday Congress passed the most ambitious financial overhaul since the Great Depression and now the shift will turn to implementing the new rules and regulations. The financial reform measure passed almost on a purely partisan vote with only three Republicans joining 57 Democrats in approving this landmark legislation.
The president will sign the bill next week and commented that the bill will "protect consumers and lay the foundation for a stronger and safer financial system, one that is innovative, creative, competitive, and far less prone to panic and collapse."
The aim of the Financial Reform Bill was to avoid the repeat of the financial meltdown in 2008, which led to the worst economic crisis the nation has faced since the Great Depression. The hot question abuzz is that if this legislation is in place to prevent the next financial meltdown, then why was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac left out of the reform measure? Both mortgage giants have currently received close to $145 billion dollars of taxpayer money with more to follow, and the financial crisis began in the housing sector; so why are they not part of financial reform.
The second sticking point is that the legislation would create a system risk council, comprising the most senior government regulators, to try to identify potential dangers in the financial system. It would create a powerful consumer financial protection bureau to be housed in the Federal Reserve, and would impose a new regulatory framework on the trading of derivatives, the complex instruments that were at the center of the 2008 downturn.
The question is who overseas this new bureau? Now that it passed will it truly prevent the next financial meltdown, or is it what it appears...more bureaucracy and bigger government. Only time will tell.
Right now, Corporate America is sitting on almost $1.8 trillion dollars in cash, but are reluctant to begin hiring. Why are companies refusing to hire more workers? The answer to that question has become a political flash point between the White House and big business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. This has created an environment of "uncertainty," which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent, the Chamber said.
The White House counters that the refusal to hire is more to do with lack of consumer demand. Too often we look to Corporate America as a signal of when the economy is on the mend and showing life, but the real gauge of U.S. economic growth is...small business! Small business accounts for up to 80% of all jobs in the country, and right now small businesses across America are reeling from the punishment meted out by Washington and state governments across the nation.
The fear and uncertainty of what the future will bring has kept companies from hiring and reducing the high unemployment facing many Americans. Until Washington and state and local governments realize that small businesses are the economic engine of this country, the nation will continue to experience economic turmoil.
With all the attention focused on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a major piece of legislation is limping toward the finish line that will have a major impact on the financial regulatory system of this country. The Financial Regulatory overhaul was supposed to have broad bi-partisan support, but unfortunately partisan politics again is playing an ugly hand in its final draft. Each party is looking toward the mid-term elections in November and how this will play out with voters.
Senate Democrats on Tuesday said they had cobbled together the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to close off debate and advance to a final vote later this week. Supporters included three Republican centrists from the Northeast, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins of Maine and Olympia Snowe, also of Maine.
The aim of the Financial Reform Bill was to avoid the repeat of the financial meltdown in 2008 which led to the worst economic crisis the nation has faced since the Great Depression. The only question that I would like to add to the debate is if this is to seek to prevent the next financial meltdown, then why was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac left out of the reform measure? Both mortgage giants have currently received close to $145 billion dollars of taxpayer money and the financial crisis began in the housing sector; so why are they not part of financial reform.
The second sticking point is that the legislation would create a system risk council, comprising the most senior government regulators, to try to identify potential dangers in the financial system. It would create a powerful consumer financial protection bureau to be housed in the Federal Reserve, and would impose a new regulatory framework on the trading of derivatives, the complex instruments that were at the center of the 2008 downturn.
The question is who overseas this new bureau? Remember sometimes the cure is worse than the disease!
On Jan 12th an earthquake struck the island nation of Haiti killing up to 300,000 people, leaving millions homeless. The world responded with a massive humanitarian response to alleviate the suffering, but where does Haiti stand six months later? The world’s attention was only short lived with promised humanitarian aid failing to materialize.
President Obama stressed the need to speed the pace of relief efforts, even former President Bill Clinton, have expressed frustration over the slow pace of the recovery. "Six months later, our resolve to stand with the people of Haiti for the long term remains undiminished," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a written statement.
Six months after the earthquake the recovery turns from relief to reconstruction, and Haiti requires extensive urban planning to rebuild and sustain itself, said Sam Worthington, president of InterAction, a U.S.-based coalition of international organizations.
After six months, where is the United Nations in providing relief for this embattled nation. It can’t just be the United States only, even our own humanitarian aid has fallen below expectations. A coordinated effort must include efforts from the entire world body and not just from America. This is where the U.N. should take the lead, but unfortunately the U.N. has been ineffective in providing leadership when it matters most.
The ending news of last month was riveting with regard to the situation in Afghanistan, but slowly the media obsession has faded and relegated the reporting to second tier status. With the confirmation of General David Petraeus to succeed General Stanley McChrystal, the administration has hardly mentioned Afghanistan.
The Obama Administration has failed to galvanize the American public about why we need to be in Afghanistan. It could be the fact that the mid-term elections are looming on the horizon and the administration can’t afford to alienate the liberal base, who are definitely opposed to continued military opposition in Afghanistan. It was easier to support re-focusing military operation in Afghanistan when George Bush was president, but now with control of the reins of power they want nothing to do with Afghanistan.
It’s unfortunate that both political parties play politics with the war and can’t seem to unite to put together a comprehensive approach for resolving the situation in Afghanistan. The armed forces of this nation are giving their all in the fight against terrorism, and we should be united as one nation, not squabbling to see how this plays out in November.
Whatever happens, the ramifications on our actions will be felt far beyond the rugged mountains of Afghanistan, even to the very heart of Washington.
This seems to come right out of a James Bond movie or transporting us back in time to the Cold War. Right now Russia and the U.S. are negotiating a swap of spies held by each country. This return to Cold War drama began last week when the FBI conducted a roundup of suspected Russian deep cover spies. A report emanating from Russia have indicated the swap could be arranged for Igor Sutyagin, a Russian disarmament researcher found guilty on spy charges six years ago.
Relations between the two former Cold War foes have chilled in recent years over variety of issues and have deepened into suspicious contempt for each other. This whole saga began last week when the FBI arrested Russian spies and charged them with conspiring to act as secret agents, money laundering, and host of other charges. The defendants were accused of living seemingly ordinary lives in America while they acted as unregistered agents for the Russian government, sending secret messages and carrying out orders they received from their Russian Contacts.
This whole episode reminds everyone who lived through the Cold War and remember the contentious nature between the two countries. Are we heading back to those days or are we entering a different period in relations?
Controversial Republican National Chairman still remains in post after last week’s comments that Afghanistan was "a war of Obama's choosing", and was "not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." Chairman Steele also commented , "has the president not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?" The embattled Chairman made reference that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.
Over the weekend Rep. Ron Paul, who is skeptical of the war in Afghanistan, defended Michael Steele’s remarks . Currently almost two thirds of Democrats, and now a few conservative Republicans, are voicing continued unease over U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Last December, when the president announced his troop surge, he included a deadline of July 2011 as a date when U.S. forces will begin to pull out.
The question I would like to ask both political parties is what does your opinion do to the morale of the troops fighting in Afghanistan? Everyone was eager at the beginning, Democrats touted Afghanistan was the war we should have been fighting all along. Well, now we are engaged in Afghanistan and suddenly everyone wants to pull back.
I wonder if the troops believe America supports them? Both parties need to stop playing partisan politics with the war! Perhaps some would be whistling a different tune if they had actually served in the military themselves!
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is trying to quell controversy over his comments that the war in Afghanistan was of "Obama's choosing" and is not winnable, remarks that put him at odds with much of his party and that led two influential Republicans to call for his resignation.
On Friday, after a video surfaced of Steele's remarks at a Connecticut fundraiser, calls for his removal came from William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine the Weekly Standard, and from Erick Erickson, who runs the conservative blog Red State. Democrats pounced, with a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee accusing Steele of "rooting for failure."
This comment comes at a time when last week General Stanley McChrsystal was relieved after he and his key aides made derogatory comments about senior Obama officials. Even this week General David Petraeus was confirmed unanimously to replace Gen.McChrystal and take over military operations in Afghanistan.
The comments by Chairman Steele come at the most inopportune time, as the country will be celebrating the birth of the nation on July 4th, and with troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps if more politicians had served their country in the armed forces they would have a more educated opinion and not make posturing statements like these.
According to a government report today, the nation’s unemployment rate fell in June even though hiring by the private sector remained soft. The much touted economic recovery is showing signs of slowing down which will have a dramatic affect on the nation’s economic outlook.
The jobless rate was 9.5 percent last month, down from 9.7 percent in May, a surprising decrease that came as hundreds of thousands of workers dropped out of the labor force. Private employers added 83,000 jobs in June, more than double the rate in May but still below the six-figure job creation numbers that would suggest a strong recovery in employment.
Overall, employers shed 125,000 jobs in June; however, that figure was distorted by the Census Bureau cutting 225,000 temporary jobs. The total of 100,000 jobs added, excluding the Census, is lower than the 130,000 or so jobs needed every month just to keep up with growth in the labor force, which could put upward pressure on the jobless rate in the months ahead.
Many economists were eagerly awaiting the jobs report for evidence of a weak economic news with the answer from June’s jobs report; The expansion that began last year has indeed lost momentum, but the numbers are not so bad as to suggest the nation is heading into a double dip recession.
The real question which is not in the job’s report is what will happen to the nation’s economy if the state’s don’t fix their dismal economies. One only has to look at California, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Other states are also experiencing dismal economies and all will be a drain on the national economy.
Nobody should be excited at this report as the nation has a lot of work to do to get the economy moving again.
The Pentagon has recommended to the President that he consider awarding the Medal of Honor to a living soldier for the first time since the Vietnam War. Six Medal of Honor’s have been awarded to service members posthumously for service in Iraq and Afghanistan, but none were awarded to a living service member.
The soldier, whose nomination must be reviewed by the White House, ran through a wall of enemy fire in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley in fall 2007 , in an attempt to push back Taliban fighters who were close to overrunning his squad. U.S. military officials said his actions saved the lives of about half a dozen men.
The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest military award for bravery. It is awarded by the President in the name of Congress. For this reason, it is often referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor. Since it was first awarded in 1863, 3,409 individuals have been awarded this medal. Nineteen individuals have been double recipients of the award.
The process is intimidating, but there is a reason for that; in their provisions for judging whether a man is entitled to the Medal of Honor, each of the armed services has set up regulations which permit no margin of doubt or error. The deed of the person must be proved by incontestable evidence of at least two eyewitnesses; it must be so outstanding that it clearly distinguishes his gallantry beyond the call of duty from lesser forms of bravery; it must involve the risk of his life; and it must be of the type of deed which, if he had not done it, would not subject him to any justified criticism.
Concern must be made that procedure’s are followed and that awarding the Soldier the Medal of Honor is not done for political reasons and is done in keeping with the spirit of those individuals who were previously awarded the Medal of Honor. You never want to diminish the award or the sacrifices of those who came before. The Congressional Medal of Honor is the most cherished award any military personnel can receive and should not be politicized in any way.
If the Soldier meets the requirements of the award by following proper procedure, then award him this highest honor for bravery above and beyond the call of duty!
