There are a lot of things November's election should be about.
The federal government is spending us into oblivion, with a $9 trillion debt already, deficits as far as the eye can see, and future as-yet-unbudgeted Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs of over $70 trillion.
We are at a fork in the road in terms of the size of the federal government: Democrats, who are the odds-on favorite to win the White House and greater majorities in Congress, want to expand social programs even more.
We desperately need a national energy policy. The Republican answer seems to be to drill wherever possible. The Democratic answer is to do nothing at all, because anything we do harms the environment.
We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible without harming the hard-won gains we've already achieved or endangering future progress for the fledgling democracy there.
The next president will have his hands full trying to peacefully and diplomatically stop the regime in Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which could happen in the next four-year U.S. presidential term. There is a fairly good likelihood that nuclear weapons in Iran would be used against both Israel and, through terrorists, against the United States.
And the next administration must shape a foreign policy around the overall war on terrorism and Islamic radicalism.
This latter point has come up in a big way in recent days, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that terrorism suspects in U.S. custody have a right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts.
Since the ruling, Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama has shown what is, frankly, a frightening naivete with regard to terrorism.
First, he praised the Supreme Court's ruling giving terror suspects captured on foreign soil the same constitutional protections afforded peaceful, law-abiding citizens of the United States.
(In the process, it should be said, the judicial branch has arrogated to itself the war powers enumerated in the Constitution and assigned to the executive and legislative branches. If it's possible for congressional or presidential actions to be unconstitutional, isn't it just remotely possible that rulings of the Supreme Court could be unconstitutional as well?)
Second, Obama has cited the criminal prosecutions of six 1993 World Trade Center bombers as a model on how to fight terrorism.
There are two significant problems with that line of thinking. For one thing, the suspects in the 1993 bombings were on U.S. soil, unlike most of the terrorists we are battling today. For another thing, their prosecution did nothing whatsoever to prevent another, more successful attack on the World Trade Center towers in 2001.
This is the approach Mr. Obama would take as president? No, thanks.
Mr. Obama is thinking of this battle as a law enforcement challenge. But in law enforcement, when you arrest, convict and imprison the perpetrators, it's generally over.
This situation is far different. If France had contended with, say, a half-dozen Germans committing crimes in Paris in 1940, French authorities could have rounded up the usual suspects and been done with it. But it was a war, and France had to contend with wave upon wave of Nazis.
This is what Mr. Obama apparently fails to see about the fight against terrorists. You cannot fight the battle, or win it, in the courts.
It's worth noting, too, that even if you took the law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism, the investigative work in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was sealed by the courts -- and therefore unavailable to federal agents who might have found the information valuable in preventing other terrorist acts.
Former Navy Secretary and 9-11 Commission member John Lehman says Obama's approach to terror "shows a very deep ignorance of the facts and (is) a very dangerous policy."
As much as we all want peace, it cannot be achieved by denying the reality before us. In truth, we will invite new attacks on our soil if we fail to understand the nature of the threat and what must be done to defeat it.
Comments
Chronicle very clearly stated now let us all pray that God given wisdom prevails in minds of people who are, it seems, totally ignorant of this Obama's lack of any ability whatsoever when it comes to making good, wise and sound decisions where the safety and welfare of this nation is concerned...His military knowledge is on par with a 2 year old and his domestic skills and knowledge are about as equally devoid of sound reasoning...
McCain would be no better Christian134, it got to the point that people are willing to pay more than 300 million for a new energy source, and they can't even put into practice the ones they have! You really need to see that government went out of control and completely ignores the constitution now. I don't like Obama either, but from where I sit, he is at least making some attempts to get this country from completely falling apart. I don't see McCain working as hard with this area, do you?
Having Obama is in my estimation the beginning or more likely the complete ending of a once powerful nation...The nation has been on a downhill run for many many decades and with Obama the slide will be complete and utter ruin....I don't care for McCain either but Obama is clearly an abomination when it comes to the definition of what it means to lead a nation onto a pathway toward clear, concise and morally upstanding policies and practices for all Americans...The answer, the solution is to pray and ask God to put His hand back on this nation and send us someone who is morally capable of taking this country from the brink of ruin to a nation the world once respected.
It's ironic & hypocritical for The Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff (ACES) to claim that Democrats are the ones who want to expand federal programs when the Bush/Cheney misadministration has been the biggest expander of federal programs since LBJ's "Great Society" which also occurred during wartime. In the 1960s it was the communists who were "out to get us". Both Democrat & Republican administrations waged proxy war in Vietnam & voted to fund the Cold War. People of a certain age remember the stagflation that followed the end of the Vietnam War. Wars lead to deficits, lead to debt, lead to inflation, lead to recession & can even lead to economic collapse. Ask the Soviet Union. The same trap we sprang on the Soviets in Afghanistan we now set for ourselves. Today's bogeyman is terrorists. Tomorrow's bogeyman will be China & Russia again. There will always be excuses to feed the military-industrial war machine & tell the people to eat cake. Cowboy diplomacy & military aggression in Iraq & Afghanistan have created more enemies of United States & potential terrorists they we have killed. 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. There is a reason "they" want to kill us. United States has meddled in the Middle East for generations. It is time to give soft power a chance. The Brits understand this. Stop killing the Pashtun Taliban. They are our best hope of defeating Arab Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Current U.S. foreign policy is counterproductive to the stated objectives of the so-called Global War on Terror.
The AC once again spews right-wing, Limbaugh, inaccurate rhetoric about Obama. If anyon ever doubted this was a war about oil, it is interesting to see 3 oil companies being awarded no bid contracts for the oil fields; Shell, Exxon-Mobil and Total.
What was inaccurate? Please support your statement with facts.
If this war was truly about oil why have we not benefited from the oil in Iraq? Why are we paying $4 per gallon at the pumps. If this about oil, why don't we just put a puppet government in place who would gladly sell us cheap oil? For that matter why not just go back to old philosophies. To the victor go the spoils. This is now our territory and we will have this area under American military rule and take all of the natural resources for ourselves at no cost. Why did we help to have a democratic free election? Why are we trying to turn this government over to them? Logic seems to escape some of us.
The President brought the Supreme Court ruling upon this country by not conducting military tribunals for the Guantanamo prisoners in a timely manner. I have no problem interrogating them for a couple of days to try to get some useful information out of them (fat chance). After that, try them and hang them. You can't be sued by a dead unlawful combatant.
I agree, they should have been interrogated, tried and then (in accordance with the Geneva Convention) executed. Each man should have been taken to the Gitmo Yard and hanged then buried facing the Latrine. the best part about the Obamessiah being elected is that the Blue states are the most likely targets for terrorists....
I was just listening to an interview with Frank Rich of NYTimes. He understood that Michele Obam did NOT mean that she had never been proud of her country, he knows what she actually meant. A moment later he makes a statement against McCain saying that Obama should appoint McCain to a post in Iraq where he could stay for the 100 years he wants. (Rich gave McCain no such leeway as he gave Michelle)-------------- Now, when we conservatives have to ignore such smear tactics against our nominee and are not allowed to say anything but sweet-nothings about the Obamas, not the party, but the world is in more trouble than people imagine.
The title of this editorial is "Is this a legal action or war?". The fact is that this is an ILLEGAL war. Iraqis did not commit any aggressive act that justified United States invasion and occupation of their country. United States brought no criminal charges against Saddam Hussein in any court of law before we invaded and put a Christian army in the middle of the Muslim world. How daft was that? I will explain something for I4PUTT and for others who are incapable of understanding logic. When we say the U.S. invaded Iraq to control access to oil (among other reasons) that does not mean that YOU were intended to benefit. This is about having access and control over Iraq's oil for United States government and for Big Oil. It is about beating China and Russia to this valuable resource we are addicted to. U.S. troops will now guard Iraq's oil facilities to guarantee that the U.S. military is supplied and that western oil corporations continue to make big profits. We do have a puppet govt of sorts in Iraq. Nouri al Maliki has to walk a tight rope. He wants Shiites to dominate and govern Iraq unfettered, but he knows he stays in power only if the U.S. military continues to prop him up.
Cain..My understanding is that when Congress gives approval, it is then a "LEGAL WAR!"> Congress aproved the invasion, (Although some member are trying to backtrack saying they were too stupid to understand what they were signing on to) which make s it without debate, a legal action!
Well, as long as we get the oil. We sure need it. And we can't get our own so we have to get someone elses. Not too many options.
Cappy, you are exactly correct. When Congress authorized the President to use military force in Iraq, it BECAME a legal war. It may not be moral, but it's legal.
With the same shortage in the entire western world, will we have to share it with others? I don't know why people are pointing fingers in the US when other countries are having problems also.
It is a legal war. American law and policy were regime change, then Congress approved the war. I find the soft policy notion humorous. Would soft policy have stopped the spread of communism in IndoChina. NO! Communism has spread through IndoChina as we feared. It is not a bogeyman but real concerns about terrorism as was the spread of communism. Cain you seem to be arguing this is a religious war (,put a Christian army in the middle of the Muslim country) if so we should kill every muslim here and abroad. It is NOT a relgious war but a war of Ideology. Just like the race for space, there is a real race for OIL. Our whole society is built on oil and it not just a source of energy but used in all kinds of products. Any President who is not dedicated to getting us more oil is dedicated to destroying our country. Replacing oil as an energy source is half the battle. The best plan is to find our own oil for now and develop alternative energy for the future. All can be done in environmentally responsible ways as a number of countries have demonstrated the feasibility. I agree we should have left Iraq long ago and the timing was poor as was trying to make any connection to terrorism.
congress cannot give the president power to break the constitution. only an amendment can. they can choose to ignore their duty to uphold the constitution which they do on a daily basis. why cant the cowards declare war? well i voted for it before i voted against it but was for yes when it meant no. nearly everyone of them should be charged with high crimes and hanged by the neck until dead...............
Is this for real? Obama changes the presidential seal?http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_Presidential_Seal/2008/06/22/106643.html?s=al&promo_code=64B7-1
I think we will be producing bacterial generated hydrocarbon fuel (not alcohol) from sugar in the near future (there is already algae generated hydrocarbon). It is easily feasible. The question should be why is this not happening. McCain's offer of 300 million for a better battery is really a joke. But perhaps I should try and take him up on his offer. Bizabattery. I'll have to patent that. hee,hee,hee. It will be all the buzz. When I was thirteen (I was always inventing and some of my ideas have come true-why didn't I pursue it is beyond me) I drew up plans for a hydrogen fueled turbo engine running off water, and an Tesla modeled electric car. Even in that day the logic for such engines was feasible, although I'm not saying my plans would work but the principals were sound. If an idiot kid could think of it why not some really brainy scientist. I just don't believe after thirty years of concerns that our country hasn't done squat. I should probably shut up least some OPEC country or my own govt hunt me down and kill me. Ever see Chain Reaction?
Twonny, tell us you really feel.
It's interesting that the writer makes good points as to the state of our country, but focuses on how bad Obama is. So you want someone like bush to replace him and make for four more years of misery? Look at the state of our country before bush and after, and it's night and day. It's too bad that bush has ruined this country like he has to make it impossible to fix in four years. The next president will no doubt be blamed for the international messes, domestic problems and outrageous budget deficit we are in. Good riddance gw bush and thanks a lot!
Hey Cappy! I followed your NewsMax link and read the article and saw the new seal. Scary. Obama wants to change the motto of the United States. No more "E Pluribus Unum" for him.
McCain says if he is elected, the U.S. will be the first country to put a man on the moon. OBAMA 08 because there is no other choice.
You mean there is no choice. We need to change the motto to a House Divided. I can't wait for a civil war. Being an independent I will sit on the fence and watch y'all kill each other off. The blue states vs the red states. Very different from the last civil war. hee,hee,hee. All the peace loving Dems should make an easy target least they prove themselves hypocritical.
234.. From your comment I take it there is NO choice. I still refuse to believe that America will fall for the Obama build-up by the national media. Since the Obama ad came out telling "who he really is", the Dem's are saying he was raised in Kansas. They know better, but they will keep that disc spinning until they fall off..> I know the media is trying to build audiences but good heavens to Betsy.
there are and have been ways of making light sweet crude.
here is a link: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm. our govt uses crisis to seize your liberty
and the oil crisis makes us do what? hate arabs? want to kill them all and take their oil? does it give our great leaders the opportunity to mask mismanagement of our govt., our social security dollars, our borders? double military spending? slide billions to their homeys? the southern invasion isnt even in the news any longer. why do you not hear about these new technologies? note the date. 2003. it is privately held.
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm
So the Chronicle does not believe in basic human rights like Habeus Corpus. They are just as guilty of War Crimes as the Bush Administration. And that is what this is about.
Oh please sigraci you need to understand the difference between war criminals as compared to peace time criminals....The terrorists that had a hand in planning or actual participation of the crimes against this country and her people need not be given one ounce of civilized treatment...They killed thousands without the least bit of remorse....
cappy your 8:48 post. I read the story last week, and it is a campaign seal for candidate Obama. It is similar to the President seal, but it is just a campaign seal, not the real one.
LaTwon you've earned a spot in Bizarro's cabinet in his run for the Presidency. Bizarro-Bone 08' Strange is Change!!! End favoritism, elitism, and political insiders being bought by lobbyist. Like Duke Nukem says:"It's time to kick butt or chew bubblegum and we're all out of gum." Right now an appropriate seal would be a certain hand gesture, but it ain't the peace symbol, black power, or the Clinton thumb.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
