Personal Thoughts About Iraq and the Race for President

In looking back on previous posts, it appears that my positions have changed. About Iraq and my feelings concerning Presidential candidates, a few things are noteworthy. One, everyone's perspective is limited to what media wants to tell us. For that reason, our vision -- our global perspective is skewed one way or another according to the information we receive. Another thing is that circumstances in the world change, requiring flexibility to change with them. One cannot grow and succeed if he cannot adapt. Finally, humans have a natural tendency of growing out of their previous beliefs as they see the world from different angles and understand that sometimes, an old opinion is not necessarily a good opinion. Thus, while it appears that I am a wishy-washy, flip-flopping, waffler, quite the opposite is true. The truth is that I consider how the world changes, I am adaptable to that change, and I am a human who believes that growth is part of change and that growth is conducive to success. Now, as the world changes, it does not always change for the better. As for Iraq, it may never be secure without an American presence, and a perpetual American presence is unrealistic.

As for presidential candidates, I have watched Obama grow politically since 2004, and the change has been only positive. I have watched Senator McCain grow since 2000, and the change has become somewhat troubling. He has become a spokesman for the far right, effectively alienating centrists like me. Also, either he has no vision concerning domestic affairs or he is reticent to vocalize that vision. Finally, some of his admissions have caused me to reconsider who I support. He has said that the economy is not an interesting topic, and he changes the subject to foreign affairs any time someone asks him about the economy. I believe Obama has a good sense about both foreign and domestic affairs, being extreme about neither. McCain has admitted that he is a manager and not a leader. I believe this country needs both, and Barack Obama is both. McCain has admitted that he is not concerned about how long we stay in Iraq as long as there are no American casualties. I believe that we should be concerned with both how long we stay and how many casualties we sustain.

There are other problems. How can we spend 9$ billion a month in Iraq when we Americans face an oncoming recession? How can we sustain a tax break for the wealthiest when we have to pay $9 billion a month for Iraq? How can we talk about privatizing healthcare or social security and, at the same time, discuss a recession and Iraq? Also, how can McCain and Clinton attack Obama by calling his words platitudinous and empty when the words McCain and Clinton attach to our world bear no hope for Americans? I don't believe talk is cheap. Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed in talk, that talk was how he kept Americans informed about his Administration. He was open and honest, which made Americans want to support Roosevelt's policies. In that way, Roosevelt turned talk into action. He knew there could be no action without talk. I suppose if Obama is about talk, and his talk is open and honest, then Obama also is about affecting change in America. I would suggest, then, that McCain and Clinton are misguided. If they don't believe in giving Americans hope, they can't possibly be concerned with affecting change. I cannot in good conscience support a candidate that chastises a human being for encouraging people to dream and to hope.

Why I Support Barack Obama

When I think about why I support Barack Obama to be my President, I nearly cry. I think about what this country might have been like had some of our finest Americans, like John Kennedy, not been assassinated. We might have gone much farther in environmental affairs. Tens of thousands more Americans might still be with us today instead of having been killed in Vietnam. Maybe we might have become the educational capital of the world. Now, I believe we Americans have another chance, that we have another fine American to nurse this country's wounds. In Barack Obama, we have a visionary that we have not known since 1964. Barack Obama has resuscitated my hope. He has given new life to the possibilities of a progressive, sophisticated, safe, and healthy America -- an economically sound and wealthy America. I support Barack Obama because a back injury keeps my wife from working, because we can no longer afford health insurance, and because an Obama Administration will ensure that we get quality healthcare despite our financial position. I support Barack Obama because when my wife and I grow old, I trust that I will be able to tell my grandchildren that President Obama gave us back our dignity. I will be able to tell them that he made this country and the world better than how he found them. I will be able to look into anybody’s eyes and affirm confidently and proudly that Barack Obama became our 44th President and, by God, I voted for him.

Benazir Bhutto on My Mind

There are a few simple things I believe about Benazir Bhutto and her assassination. Those beliefs are as follows: 1) she was a presidential candidate whose qualities were on par with John Kennedy or Barack Obama; 2) she was powerful, intelligent, influential, beautiful, and posed a perceived threat to the male-dominated status quo; 3) she was too liberal for the current military establishment in Pakistan; 4) she was not fully supported by the United States; 5) she fell prey to a Pakistani regime that did not want to share power with her; and 6) she was assassinated by a Pakistani regime that knew it could get away with murder. The United States needs that regime to secure its own nuclear arms and to allow US Predators to fly over Pakistan. It is worth noting that the suspected al-Qaeda link to her assassination denied being involved. Why would a terrorist organization, which thrives on large-scale public displays of chaos and devastation, deny that it murdered a mega-profile presidential candidate with a message of political change? After all, wouldn't that terrorist organization feel that a civilian-run Bhuto administration would be far easier to infiltrate or to otherwise undermine? The details don't seem to fit so well.

He Was Bad Company Until the Day He Died

Imad Mughniyeh is a name quite familiar in CIA circles. Robert Baer, in his book, See No Evil, writes about his obsession with finding this terrorist--murderer. As the above report mentions, Mughniyeh died when a car exploded Tuesday, February 12, in Damascus, Syria. The Iranians blame Israel. Of course, after September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration relaxed EO 12333 banning CIA-conducted or supported assassinations. Now, when the target is a terroris, no holds are barred. Karma has a way of making her rounds.