There has been quite a bit of debate over the past few days concerning President Barack Obama's decision not to release the death photos of former al-Qaida spiritual head Osama bin Laden. There are some people, apparently, who believe they have a right to see the gruesome photos of bin Laden after he was shot in the head, "just to make sure" he's really dead. There are even some, I've heard, who believe the whole thing is a hoax. These people are wrong. Bin Laden is undeniably dead. DNA tests confirm it. And President Obama is right to keep the death photos from public view.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" set to air Sunday, Obama explained that releasing the photos to the public would pose a serious national security risk to Americans stationed abroad. The administration, apparently, is afraid that releasing the photos would incite some in the Arab world to violence, that they would only be used as a recruiting tool for future terrorists. Given the fact that the simple act of drawing the prophet Mohammed in a political cartoon was enough to incite riots in the Middle East a few years ago, that's a supremely sensible decision.
One thing really stuck out to me in reading the transcript of the Obama interview. The president said something to the effect of "We don't need trophies. We don't need to spike the ball." There's the difference between Obama -- a mature, sensible adult -- and his predecessor, George W. "Baby" Bush. Bush staked his entire presidency on the "war" on terror he declared following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. His whole legacy rests on the search for bin Laden. Just like the rest of his ill-fated presidency, that was a failure. But is there any doubt that if Bush had been commander-in-chief when bin Laden was taken down, that he wouldn't have gloated about it to the rest of the world? Is there any doubt that he would have released the photos just to pump up his already overinflated ego and make himself look good? I don't doubt it. Hell, I could even see him flying onto an aircraft carrier, complete with a "Mission Accomplished" sign.
Bush was a cowboy. Obama is an adult, a deep thinker, someone who considers all the consequences of his actions before he acts. He is absolutely right that Americans don't have a "right" to the photos. Frankly, I'm relieved that we finally have a sensible adult back in charge in America.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Trump, the birther debate and other newsworthy events
OK, so I know this is a little late on some of these topics, but it's not every day the U.S. kills the world's No. 1 terrorist, and so I'm a little late in clearing my plate on these topics. Here we go.
Donald Trump is a joke. There, I've said it. The fact that he's flirting with a run for the White House in 2012 and is being taken seriously by those pundits supposedly in the know only highlights the dearth of serious candidates at this point on either side and shows how little real news there is to talk about.
Trump's flirtation with a presidential run reminds me of another billionaire outsider who thought he could be president: Ross Perot. Both have nationwide name recognition -- always a good start to a presidential run. Both are independently wealthy and are self-made men. If they wanted, they could finance an entire campaign without taking a lick of public financing. Neither has ever held elected office before. They are truly political outsiders and something novel, something new. But that's where the similarities end.
The difference between Perot and Trump is that Perot had been nibbling around the edge of politics for years before he decided to run in 1992. In his home state of Texas, he was called on by the governor at the time, Bill Clemens, to come up with a plan to fix the state's ailing education system. And he did. Many of his ideas are still being used today.
Perot also took advantage of the nation's ailing economy in 1992. He came out with serious ideas for fixing the economy, and when he spoke, his plain-spoken, straightforward manner appealed to a lot of people who were tired of the political double talk and aching for something different. In 1992, he garnered 19 percent of the vote -- best ever for an independent candidate. And he took that momentum and founded the Reform Party, which played a role in the next election in 1996.
Was Perot a little bit of a clown? Yes. His "my way or the highway" approach to politics would have gone over like a lead balloon in Washington. He was used to being in charge and having people ask "how high?" when he said jump. It wouldn't have worked in Washington.
Now compare Perot to Trump. There simply is no comparison. Trump is a self-absorbed, arrogant clown of the first order. He has no issues to hang his hat on except the thoroughly discredited "birther" debate. He's got no real ideas or vision for the future of our country. He's a self-centered little boy starving for the nation's attention. He's not worth it.
As for the "birther" debate, I was glad to see President Barack Obama finally take control of the debate recently and release his "long-form" birth certificate. The whole idea that we would have wasted more than two years debating whether the president was even a citizen is just ridiculous. It smacks of desperation by a party that has let itself be hijacked by its fringe elements and religious extremists. It only highlights the fact that the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan led 30 years ago is dead. Today's GOP is devoid of real leadership and has abandoned the ideas that made it great -- that of smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. That's a real shame. Somewhere, "the Gipper" must be spinning in his grave.
Donald Trump is a joke. There, I've said it. The fact that he's flirting with a run for the White House in 2012 and is being taken seriously by those pundits supposedly in the know only highlights the dearth of serious candidates at this point on either side and shows how little real news there is to talk about.
Trump's flirtation with a presidential run reminds me of another billionaire outsider who thought he could be president: Ross Perot. Both have nationwide name recognition -- always a good start to a presidential run. Both are independently wealthy and are self-made men. If they wanted, they could finance an entire campaign without taking a lick of public financing. Neither has ever held elected office before. They are truly political outsiders and something novel, something new. But that's where the similarities end.
The difference between Perot and Trump is that Perot had been nibbling around the edge of politics for years before he decided to run in 1992. In his home state of Texas, he was called on by the governor at the time, Bill Clemens, to come up with a plan to fix the state's ailing education system. And he did. Many of his ideas are still being used today.
Perot also took advantage of the nation's ailing economy in 1992. He came out with serious ideas for fixing the economy, and when he spoke, his plain-spoken, straightforward manner appealed to a lot of people who were tired of the political double talk and aching for something different. In 1992, he garnered 19 percent of the vote -- best ever for an independent candidate. And he took that momentum and founded the Reform Party, which played a role in the next election in 1996.
Was Perot a little bit of a clown? Yes. His "my way or the highway" approach to politics would have gone over like a lead balloon in Washington. He was used to being in charge and having people ask "how high?" when he said jump. It wouldn't have worked in Washington.
Now compare Perot to Trump. There simply is no comparison. Trump is a self-absorbed, arrogant clown of the first order. He has no issues to hang his hat on except the thoroughly discredited "birther" debate. He's got no real ideas or vision for the future of our country. He's a self-centered little boy starving for the nation's attention. He's not worth it.
As for the "birther" debate, I was glad to see President Barack Obama finally take control of the debate recently and release his "long-form" birth certificate. The whole idea that we would have wasted more than two years debating whether the president was even a citizen is just ridiculous. It smacks of desperation by a party that has let itself be hijacked by its fringe elements and religious extremists. It only highlights the fact that the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan led 30 years ago is dead. Today's GOP is devoid of real leadership and has abandoned the ideas that made it great -- that of smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. That's a real shame. Somewhere, "the Gipper" must be spinning in his grave.
Monday, May 2, 2011
A hollow victory?
Mark it down. May 1, 2011 is the day the United States finally got its man. It's the day Osama bin Laden was finally tracked down and killed by U.S. special forces.
The death of bin Laden is, without a doubt, a momentous day in the history of America. It marked the culmination of more than a decade of work by our intelligence community and our military in bringing down one of the world's most dangerous terrorists. But 24 hours later, the question remains. What have we accomplished really?
Yes, bin Laden is gone. It is a huge symbolic, and dare I say, moral victory for the United States. All the analysts are correct in saying that bin Laden's death sends a clear message that we will do whatever it takes to protect our homeland and our people. It sends the message that we will not allow ourselves to be distracted from the task of fighting terror wherever it may be found. But in the long run, what have we accomplished?
Bin Laden is dead. Good. He deserved to die. But the reality is, we haven't destroyed al-Qaida. We got rid of the symbolic head of the worldwide terror network, but rest assured, bin Laden had planned for his demise. He had someone ready to step in and take over after his death. In fact, we already know his name: Ayman al Zawahari. So again, I ask, what have we REALLY accomplished? I know one thing we've accomplished: We've made bin Laden a martyr for future generations of terrorists. It's not a matter of IF his followers retaliate. It's a matter of WHEN.
Now that bin Laden is dead, it is incumbent upon our leadership to ask the question, "what's next?" Is it going to be the foreign policy of the United States from here on out to fight the war on terror, to as former President George W. Bush envisioned, "make the world safe for democracy?" That is a beautiful dream, but a practical impossibility. For every terrorist we kill, there will always be someone standing ready to take his place. Just how much blood and treasure are we willing to commit to the effort?
If we truly want to make the world safe for democracy, here's a radical idea. Why not take a close, honest look at U.S. foreign policy over the past 100 years? Why not admit that our presence in certain parts of the world (specifically the Middle East) and our unilateral support of Israel has inflamed the passions of millions to the point that they're willing to die to attack us? By
making our presence felt in the Middle East, and by supporting Israel no matter what they do, we have given terrorists worldwide a moral high ground to stand on to justify their heinous acts.
Let me be very clear. I am in no way advocating terrorism. Senseless violence, such as the 9/11 attacks, and targeting innocent people (military or otherwise) is ALWAYS wrong. But I think it is past time that we admitted that we share some of the burden in helping create the situation we now face. And it's past time that we asked the honest question of what we can, and should, do about it.
The death of bin Laden is, without a doubt, a momentous day in the history of America. It marked the culmination of more than a decade of work by our intelligence community and our military in bringing down one of the world's most dangerous terrorists. But 24 hours later, the question remains. What have we accomplished really?
Yes, bin Laden is gone. It is a huge symbolic, and dare I say, moral victory for the United States. All the analysts are correct in saying that bin Laden's death sends a clear message that we will do whatever it takes to protect our homeland and our people. It sends the message that we will not allow ourselves to be distracted from the task of fighting terror wherever it may be found. But in the long run, what have we accomplished?
Bin Laden is dead. Good. He deserved to die. But the reality is, we haven't destroyed al-Qaida. We got rid of the symbolic head of the worldwide terror network, but rest assured, bin Laden had planned for his demise. He had someone ready to step in and take over after his death. In fact, we already know his name: Ayman al Zawahari. So again, I ask, what have we REALLY accomplished? I know one thing we've accomplished: We've made bin Laden a martyr for future generations of terrorists. It's not a matter of IF his followers retaliate. It's a matter of WHEN.
Now that bin Laden is dead, it is incumbent upon our leadership to ask the question, "what's next?" Is it going to be the foreign policy of the United States from here on out to fight the war on terror, to as former President George W. Bush envisioned, "make the world safe for democracy?" That is a beautiful dream, but a practical impossibility. For every terrorist we kill, there will always be someone standing ready to take his place. Just how much blood and treasure are we willing to commit to the effort?
If we truly want to make the world safe for democracy, here's a radical idea. Why not take a close, honest look at U.S. foreign policy over the past 100 years? Why not admit that our presence in certain parts of the world (specifically the Middle East) and our unilateral support of Israel has inflamed the passions of millions to the point that they're willing to die to attack us? By
making our presence felt in the Middle East, and by supporting Israel no matter what they do, we have given terrorists worldwide a moral high ground to stand on to justify their heinous acts.
Let me be very clear. I am in no way advocating terrorism. Senseless violence, such as the 9/11 attacks, and targeting innocent people (military or otherwise) is ALWAYS wrong. But I think it is past time that we admitted that we share some of the burden in helping create the situation we now face. And it's past time that we asked the honest question of what we can, and should, do about it.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Here we go again
It seems no matter who's in the White House, we just can't avoid using our power to influence world affairs.
Recently, we partnered with France and Great Britain to get involved in the unrest in Libya. Remember when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 and won by promising to get us out of our ill-advised war of choice in Iraq? Now, here we go again sticking our nose in another country's civil war which, frankly, is none of our business.
The difference, of course, is the motivation behind our most recent military action. While Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about getting rid of Saddam Hussein as part of a Bush family vendetta, protecting our oil interests -- Iraq does control 20 percent of the world's oil supply -- and "planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East," our purpose for being in Libya isn't nation-building, but keeping Libyan strongman Muammar Ghadafi from murdering his own people. Much like we did in Kosovo under former President Bill Clinton, this is a humanitarian mission. Another big difference between this operation and Iraqi Freedom is that we have the support of the United Nations and the rest of the world. We're not out there on our own. Still, I have to ask, do we really need to be involved in what is essentially a civil war?
Humanitarian mission aside, I can't help but think that if we're going to make it our business to take out every evil despot in the world -- and there's no doubt that Ghadafi fits the bill -- then we're going to busy for a long time and our military is going to be stretched awfully thin. Also, is it really necessary for us to be involved? Look what happened when the people of Egypt decided to get rid of their longtime president, Hosni Mubarak. They managed to put an end to a 30-year dictatorship without firing a single shot just by organizing on Facebook. If it can happen in Egypt, why not elsewhere in the Middle East, without U.S. military intervention?
I'm not suggesting that we shut the rest of the world out and ignore the problems in the world. Obviously, as the world's sole remaining military superpower, we can't afford to do that. But I am suggesting that we should be very careful about where and for what reason we commit our military. And no matter what's happening in Libya, it's not somewhere we should make a long-term commitment.
Recently, we partnered with France and Great Britain to get involved in the unrest in Libya. Remember when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 and won by promising to get us out of our ill-advised war of choice in Iraq? Now, here we go again sticking our nose in another country's civil war which, frankly, is none of our business.
The difference, of course, is the motivation behind our most recent military action. While Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about getting rid of Saddam Hussein as part of a Bush family vendetta, protecting our oil interests -- Iraq does control 20 percent of the world's oil supply -- and "planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East," our purpose for being in Libya isn't nation-building, but keeping Libyan strongman Muammar Ghadafi from murdering his own people. Much like we did in Kosovo under former President Bill Clinton, this is a humanitarian mission. Another big difference between this operation and Iraqi Freedom is that we have the support of the United Nations and the rest of the world. We're not out there on our own. Still, I have to ask, do we really need to be involved in what is essentially a civil war?
Humanitarian mission aside, I can't help but think that if we're going to make it our business to take out every evil despot in the world -- and there's no doubt that Ghadafi fits the bill -- then we're going to busy for a long time and our military is going to be stretched awfully thin. Also, is it really necessary for us to be involved? Look what happened when the people of Egypt decided to get rid of their longtime president, Hosni Mubarak. They managed to put an end to a 30-year dictatorship without firing a single shot just by organizing on Facebook. If it can happen in Egypt, why not elsewhere in the Middle East, without U.S. military intervention?
I'm not suggesting that we shut the rest of the world out and ignore the problems in the world. Obviously, as the world's sole remaining military superpower, we can't afford to do that. But I am suggesting that we should be very careful about where and for what reason we commit our military. And no matter what's happening in Libya, it's not somewhere we should make a long-term commitment.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
We're going to be sorry
On Tuesday, as expected, Republicans made historic gains in midterm elections nationwide. It's not really a surprise that Republicans would gain seats in midterm elections, or even that they would regain control of the House. It is traditional that the party that controls the White House loses seats in the following midterms. What is surprising is the number of seats that they gained. At last count, they stood to gain at least 60 seats in the House of Representatives, the most one party has gained in at least 60 years. While it fell short of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, it was a significant shift in power engineered by voters who are scared and worried about the nation's economy, which continues to stumble along with an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. As giddy as Republicans are at regaining the House, though, they shouldn't make the same mistake that Democrats made in 2008, when they solidified their majorities in both houses. Tuesday's gains don't represent a mandate from voters for Republicans' conservative policies. They represent a rejection of Democrats, who failed to fix the economy. despite four years of controlling both houses.
So what can we expect now that Republicans have taken over the House and tightened Democrats' majority in the Senate? In a word, gridlock. Republicans, with rare exception (think John McCain or Lindsey Graham), are not known for their willingness to work with the opposing party once they gain control. With Republicans in control of the House, we can expect them to push their agenda of smaller government and reduced spending and extending Bush-era tax cuts for the rich. We can expect them to do everything in their power to stymie Democrats' efforts to advance their own agenda as both parties begin jockeying for position for the 2012 presidential election. And we can expect Republicans to maintain their majority for the forseeable future, since they will be in charge of redistricting this time, and are sure to redraw congressional districts to their advantage.
It was only four years ago that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Is our collective memory so short that we don't remember the power grabs, the corruption, the looking out for the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor and the Republicans creating much of the mess that we currently find ourselves in? We can expect more of the same now that Republicans are back in control of the House. We're going to be sorry.
So what can we expect now that Republicans have taken over the House and tightened Democrats' majority in the Senate? In a word, gridlock. Republicans, with rare exception (think John McCain or Lindsey Graham), are not known for their willingness to work with the opposing party once they gain control. With Republicans in control of the House, we can expect them to push their agenda of smaller government and reduced spending and extending Bush-era tax cuts for the rich. We can expect them to do everything in their power to stymie Democrats' efforts to advance their own agenda as both parties begin jockeying for position for the 2012 presidential election. And we can expect Republicans to maintain their majority for the forseeable future, since they will be in charge of redistricting this time, and are sure to redraw congressional districts to their advantage.
It was only four years ago that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Is our collective memory so short that we don't remember the power grabs, the corruption, the looking out for the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor and the Republicans creating much of the mess that we currently find ourselves in? We can expect more of the same now that Republicans are back in control of the House. We're going to be sorry.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Ghost Candidate
I'm beginning to wonder about 8th District Republican congressional candidate Stephen Fincher. First, he announces that he won't debate his opponent, state Sen. Roy Herron, D-Dresden. Now, he announces that he won't release his income tax records. My question is, what is Fincher hiding?
I can understand why Fincher doesn't want to debate Herron. After all, Fincher is little more than an unpolished farmer and gospel singer from Frog Jump. He's a political neophyte. Herron, on the other hand is a polished, Vanderbilt-educated lawyer and a 20-year political veteran. Live debates can be tricky. Without his handlers telling him what to say and feeding him sound bites, he's in real danger of saying the wrong thing. And once something is out there in the public domain, it can't be taken back. A live debate can make or break a candidate, and Fincher knows that. Still, he owes it to his his potential future constituents to face them and answer their questions. A debate is one way for voters to educate themselves about candidates so they can make an informed choice. That's why Fincher owes it to the public to face Herron.
Even more troubling is Fincher's refusal to release his income tax records. His defense that "I haven't done anything illegal, so there's no reason to release my records" just doesn't fly. Releasing income tax records is standard procedure for political candidates. Even the president releases his records every year. Fincher's refusal to release his records only raises the question of what he has to hide.
Fincher seems to be trying to have it both ways. He wants to represent the people of the 8th District, but he wants to maintain his status as a private citizen. He can't have it both ways. Fincher was the first to throw his hat in the ring to replace retiring Rep. John Tanner. He should have known that he was giving up his status as a private citizen. It's time he came to terms with it and faced the public. They deserve nothing less.
I can understand why Fincher doesn't want to debate Herron. After all, Fincher is little more than an unpolished farmer and gospel singer from Frog Jump. He's a political neophyte. Herron, on the other hand is a polished, Vanderbilt-educated lawyer and a 20-year political veteran. Live debates can be tricky. Without his handlers telling him what to say and feeding him sound bites, he's in real danger of saying the wrong thing. And once something is out there in the public domain, it can't be taken back. A live debate can make or break a candidate, and Fincher knows that. Still, he owes it to his his potential future constituents to face them and answer their questions. A debate is one way for voters to educate themselves about candidates so they can make an informed choice. That's why Fincher owes it to the public to face Herron.
Even more troubling is Fincher's refusal to release his income tax records. His defense that "I haven't done anything illegal, so there's no reason to release my records" just doesn't fly. Releasing income tax records is standard procedure for political candidates. Even the president releases his records every year. Fincher's refusal to release his records only raises the question of what he has to hide.
Fincher seems to be trying to have it both ways. He wants to represent the people of the 8th District, but he wants to maintain his status as a private citizen. He can't have it both ways. Fincher was the first to throw his hat in the ring to replace retiring Rep. John Tanner. He should have known that he was giving up his status as a private citizen. It's time he came to terms with it and faced the public. They deserve nothing less.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Give Obama a break
With midterm elections coming up in a couple of months, it's no surprise that Republicans across the nation have amped up their attacks on President Barack Obama. According to their latest attacks, the president has spent too much and done to little to help the economy and those who continue to be out of work. Any efforts he makes to revive the moribund economy are looked at as a "deathbed conversion," according to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and "too little too late" by others. Give me a break.
In the first place, it's not entirely Obama's fault that we're in the mess we're in economically. Remember that we had entered this recession toward the end of former President George W. Bush's term in 2008. It is fair to say that Obama is responsible for the success or failure of his economic recovery efforts. But it's not fair to blame him completely for the current situation. While not everyone may agree with his economic recovery efforts -- not everyone likes his stimulus recovery package, for instance -- or his proposal to improve the nation's transportation infrastructure, at least he's trying something new. Still, with the economy still in the doldrums and unemployment hovering around 10 percent nationally, it looks like the Republicans are set to make major gains in November's elections. Can the Republicans fix the economy, assuming they take over Congress? Well, they failed miserably the last time they had control. It will be interesting to see if they have learned anything new in the past couple of years.
In the first place, it's not entirely Obama's fault that we're in the mess we're in economically. Remember that we had entered this recession toward the end of former President George W. Bush's term in 2008. It is fair to say that Obama is responsible for the success or failure of his economic recovery efforts. But it's not fair to blame him completely for the current situation. While not everyone may agree with his economic recovery efforts -- not everyone likes his stimulus recovery package, for instance -- or his proposal to improve the nation's transportation infrastructure, at least he's trying something new. Still, with the economy still in the doldrums and unemployment hovering around 10 percent nationally, it looks like the Republicans are set to make major gains in November's elections. Can the Republicans fix the economy, assuming they take over Congress? Well, they failed miserably the last time they had control. It will be interesting to see if they have learned anything new in the past couple of years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)