I am traveling, but, there is still much to examine in the idea "I am the Decider."

George W. Bush as president shed generals as if there was no need for a military anymore. The first to resign was General Eric K. Shinseki.  If you never understood why there were difference between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and "W" realize they completely disagreed with his war methodology.

By Editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica
...Shinseki remained on as army chief of staff (click here) during the administration of Pres.George W. Bush, but his tenure was marked by increasing tension with civilian leaders in the Pentagon. Shinseki subscribed to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s doctrine that military force, if used, should be overwhelming in size, speed, and power. This conflicted with the “small footprint” strategy espoused by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his assistant, Paul Wolfowitz, who believed that advanced battlefield technology and precision weapons made large bodies of traditional infantry obsolete. In the days leading up to the Iraq War, this doctrinal clash became public, when Shinseki testified before Congress in 2003 that an invasion of Iraq would require “several hundred thousand soldiers” and that a post-war occupation could awaken “ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.” These statements were immediately refuted by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and Shinseki retired a few months later....

"I am the Decider."

Firing generals will bring into focus their benefits after decades of service. It will be a shock wave through the entire military structure.

8 September 2016
By David Usborne

Donald Trump (click here) has told a televised town hall on national security that he believes America’s top generals have been “reduced to rubble” under the leadership of President Barack Obama and insinuated that many of them would be fired if he takes the White House in November.
And in an exchange that surely raised eyebrows the Republican nominee suggested he was happy to accept flattery from Vladimir Putin and again offered the Russian leader his praise, regardless of his record of aggression in eastern Europe and assisting Iran and the Syrian regime. 
He made the remarks to NBC anchor Matt Lauer during a special ‘commander-in-chief’ forum broadcast live from on board the retired USS Intrepid in New York where both he and Hillary Clinton were given nearly half an hour each to explain their foreign policy priorities....

"I am the Decider."

Fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.  (In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

One of the first step toward a military that will operate according to the commands of the president is to raze the current leadership and instill new generals that will be loyal to the commander and chief. 

During the years of "W" the USA military lost a lot of top generals and were replaced with lower ranking officers moved into positions such as Captain than traditionally authorized. What the USA military had on the first day of President Barack Obama administration was a hollowed leadership. The leadership was being reconstituted with less qualified officers with limited understanding of a traditional battlefield in practice.

If Donald Trump has his way, the generals serving under President Obama will be razed and again the USA military will be hollowed out and replaced once again with lower ranking officers with less experience than those found in President Obama's military. And on top of all that, Donald Trump wants to reignite the war in the middle east as a promise to voters during his campaign in order to annihilate Daesh. It is "W" all over again.

April 12, 2007
By Jim Lobe

Washington - President George W. Bush's (click here) ongoing "surge" of some 35,000 troops to add to the 140,000 already deployed in Iraq is highlighting growing concern, particularly among the military brass, that the U.S. army is overstretched and fast becoming "broken".An increasing number of senior retired officers, some of whom had previously expressed optimism that the active-duty force of some 500,000 soldiers could handle U.S. commitments in the "global war on terror", now say the current situation today reminds them of 1980, when the service's top officer, Gen. Edward Meyer, publicly declared that the country had a "hollow Army".

"The active army is about broken," former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also served as chairman of the Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush 15 years ago, told Time magazine this week, while another highly decorated retired general who just returned from Iraq and Afghanistan described the situation in even more dire terms....

It appears to me Donald Trump does not only admire Vladimir Putin, but, took lessons as well.

Remember who is the decider.

Until later!

We have been here before. Stop making the same mistake about American leadership.

Facism Fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.  (In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

"I am the decider."

8 September 2016
By Daniel Drezner
 
It may not have been the choicest of venues (click here) for Donald Trump, as he disputes the charge that he is being played by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But there he was Thursday, being interviewed on Russia Today, the network funded by the Kremlin. Trump’s campaign said it was all a big mistake.
The interviewer was Larry King, whom Trump has known for years. Campaign officials said the candidate’s understanding was that the interview would be used only for King’s podcast.
Some were skeptical of that explanation.
Trump took the opportunity while being interviewed for Putin’s network to say he does not believe Putin is interfering in the American election.
“I think it's probably unlikely,” Trump said of findings by investigators that hackers working for Putin stole files from the servers of the Democratic National Committee and distributed them to Wikileaks....

June 29, 2010
By Tod Robberson
 
In 2001, President George Bush (click here) issued a truly astounding appraisal of Vladimir Putin, the former KGB agent who has run Russia since replacing Boris Yeltsin in 1999. “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.” Bush got it half right. Putin was absolutely committed to Russia and Russia’s interests. But trustworthy? I think Bush’s own CIA and FBI specialists would have told him to read his intelligence briefs more closely before opening his mouth....

Basically, Bush and Trump like Russia. As an international Russia has been steadfast and powerful with exceptions such as Ukraine.

"I am the decider."

March 25, 2016
By Bernie Quigley
 

...On NATO, for instance: Trump is right about NATO. (click here)
"We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," Trump said. "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."
Incomprehensible. Ask anybody. As Fortune commented, "he became the first mainstream candidate to ever suggest that the United States withdraw from NATO."...

October 2008
By Stanley R. Sloan  

"How and Why Did NATO Survive Bush Doctrine? (click here) 

The Republicans have it "W"rong. They have it wrong on domestic economic policy, they have it wrong on Zika, they have it wrong on a woman's rights and self-directed life, the Republicans have it wrong on NATO and they have it wrong on global stability.

Does anyone stop to realize how consistent the Republicans are in their hatred of the United Nations, NATO and any foreign relationship that has a permanent place in the USA national budget.

When are the American people going to jettison the Republican party once and for all. They are wrong about everything.

This is a map from Wikipedia. This is the post Soviet countries.
 
August 29, 2014
By Christopher Harress
 
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk (click here) told the Ukrainian parliament Friday that his government is seeking to join NATO, more than two decades after the country became independent as the USSR dissolved. The move has already received strong condemnation from Moscow, but this isn’t the first time a former Soviet republic has turned to NATO for protection.
"The government is entering a bill to Verkhovna Rada (parliament) about the cancellation of Ukraine's non-bloc status and resumption of Ukraine's course for NATO membership,” said Yatsenyuk on Friday, as the country fights off what it called an invasion by Russia and seeks a path to gain the protection of the U.S.-led alliance.
The moves comes after NATO and Ukraine said that Russian troops had entered Ukraine in the east of the country. The invasion would be a breach of the Budapest Memorandum, a pact signed in 1994 by the U.S., Russia and the U.K. affirming that no signatory nation would threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in exchange for the delivery to Russia or the destruction of the nuclear weapons that Ukraine had been left in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union.... 

In the years after the 2008 global economic collapse, NATO countries cut their contributions with a focus on austerity. That should be rebalanced and each member pay their rightful share to the alliance. 

$711.8 million to secure Europe. Not even a billion. The USA is still in Afghanistan and cannot afford to leave NATO. This entire focus by the Republicans in treating the USA budget as a business is nonsense. The USA needs Europe. Europe adds to American's quality of life. Who can do without the Irish or Paris or Big Ben.

Who is going to keep the Polish Americans on the straight and narrow when it comes to the season of Easter? Who can do without Traditional Polish custom of blessing food on Holy Saturday. This Święconka basket contains: kiełbasa, boiled eggs, salt, pepper and bread. Decorated with bilberry leaves. Blessed food is eaten at Easter breakfast.

From David S. Morgan
CBS News
In a speech in Brussels, (click here) outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that America’s military alliance with Europe faces a “dim, if not dismal” future, owing to what he characterized as the United States’ disproportionate funding of NATO operations, and of allies “willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets… .”
The United States contributes between one-fifth and one-quarter of NATO’s budget. In FY2010 that contribution totaled $711.8 million....

The Republicans are wrong about life and what defines the United States of America. 

End this mess and return sanity to American elections again!

Missile tests are always a bad feeling. The problem this time is it wasn't announced or was it?

September 9, 2016
By David E. Sanger, Choe Sang-Hun and Jane Perlez

Geneva — North Korea’s(click here) latest test of an atomic weapon leaves the United States with an uncomfortable choice: Stick with a policy of incremental sanctions that has clearly failed to stop the country’s nuclear advances, or pick among alternatives that range from the highly risky to the repugnant.

A hard embargo, in which Washington and its allies block all shipping into and out of North Korea and seek to paralyze its finances, risks confrontations that allies in Asia fear could quickly escalate into war. But restarting talks on the North’s terms would reward the defiance of its young leader, Kim Jong-un, with no guarantee that he will dismantle the nuclear program irrevocably.

For more than seven years, President Obama has sought to find a middle ground, adopting a policy of gradually escalating sanctions that the White House once called “strategic patience.” But the test on Friday — the North’s fifth and most powerful blast yet, perhaps with nearly twice the strength of its last one — eliminates any doubt that that approach has failed and that the North has mastered the basics of detonating a nuclear weapon... 

Brookings:

September 9, 2016
By Jonathan D. Pollack  

North Korea's fifth nuclear test (click here)) this morning was not a surprise. On multiple occasions over the past six months, senior officials (including Kim Jong-un, the North's impetuous young leader) have openly disclosed plans for additional testing. In March - while on a visit to a nuclear research and development facility - Kim said the next test would occur "in a short time...and it would be a nuclear warhead explosion test. "Despite near-universal opposition and warnings of additional pressure and sanction, Pyongyang has made good on its threat....

I have to laugh when men believe there is a way to 'handle' North Korea. There never was and there never will be. North Korea has existed decades after the Korean conflict. It is not going anywhere. Sooner or later the global powers are going to have to recognize the new leader of North Korea that resembles his father only by their gene pool.

When Kim, Jr. came into power he was not about to settle for the status quo of his father nor would he retreat from his father's re-engagement of advancing nuclear power and nuclear weapons. We can thank Bush/Cheney for that reality.

The issue here is that the only person on Earth that knows anything about Kim Jong-un and how he sees his leadership and plans for the future of his people is Dennis Rodman. It is clearly the fact that diplomacy with North Korea's young leader has completely failed. 

Now.

When is there going to be meaningful dialogue with North Korea and Kim Jong-un?

The only way to effectively deal with North Korea's resurgent leadership is to defend from nuclear engagement. That is the trial of the non-proliferation treaty. The five permanent nations still have to enforce the non-proliferation treaty. If that is not the first choice of the five nations than be prepared for lots of money being spent on missile defense RATHER than the economic growth of impoverished people.

I certainly hope no country is entertaining nuclear confrontation. That confrontation would not end with North Korea, it would unleash fear of nuclear powers of each other and they will all be using North Korea as a poker chip to successful strikes against each other. 

The five permanent nations to the UN Security Council need to re-engage the non-proliferation treaty and end the wishes of hatred between countries. If only they had the chance with North Korea as an excuse, would it be at all moral and where would it stop?

There is much in the balance with North Korea's current leadership, but, second guessing intentions and preparing for a nuclear exchange is not an answer, it is retreat from morality. 

The Flint River Water Project. 

It is taking on nice dimensions. This is a project that will probably take a year to complete by the time I have read all the information, complied a consensus from FACT and publish it here for everyone. 

I am receiving a good welcome and a great deal of cooperation. I hope to begin my reading of files within a month or two, but, I have to admit the information I am seeking may take some time to find and make it available to me.

I am not allowed to look through the files in the file room. Evidently, the information is to be sent to a central location for my convenience. 

Best regards and I will continue to post here weekly. This is definitely a project with a specific focus and outcome. I am hopeful it will be something that will interest the country and bring an understanding to where the future lies in activism at the very least.

Thank you for your continued interest.

She has a great complexion, but, a little too much astringent or is it...

...her skin is a little dry. She needs to spend more time in the mirror. Seriously. She has a long run over the next two months and she needs to take care of her skin a little more.

9:11 AM

Good morning everyone. (click here) Hillary Clinton is expected to speak to reporters soon in New York. Follow along here for a live blog of the questions and answers....

I also want her to stop apologizing and taking responsibility and here is why.

I actually don't believe her vote on the Iraq War is the complete reason for the win by then Senator Barack Obama. If I remember correctly, there was a turning point when now First Lady Michelle Obama stated, "He is not going to run for the office of President of the United States of America again. She was emphatic and it was at that point Democrats realized they had to put a little more backbone in their decision making.

I think the Iraq War vote was substantial in making decisions that election though. 

If I may.

The former Senator Barack Obama was elected in 2004 and took the office January 2005. He was a freshman Senator when he decided to run for the Presidency. If Michelle hadn't stated he would not run again for the presidency he would probably had not been the nominee. That is simply my opinion. As a freshman Senator most Democrats thought he needed a little more time in the Senate.

Former Senator Hillary Clinton won the election in 2000 and took office on January 3, 2001 while she ended her term as First Lady on January 20, 2001. I don't believe there is a Senator in history that actually held two offices in the federal government at the same time. She was a freshman Senator in 2001.

September 11, 2001 is well known to everyone. The USA responded by building a campaign in Afghanistan to end al Qaeda one month later. We started by parachuting food supplies to the Afghan people. Included in those food supplies was an explanation stating the American soldiers were coming and why. Most Afghans had no idea where New York City was and in fact what the heck are the World Trade Towers. The average Afghan did not have television, had no idea what it was (probably a good thing) and lived simple and happy lives. Their quality of life was not terrible to them. Their longevity was built on simple food, their religious practices provided their culture and active lives practicing survival.

Today, Afghanistan is a somewhat different place. I would like to see it become a tourist area while touting their culture. They would bring insight to their people and wealth to their country. But. The Taliban and some remnants of al Qaeda prevent all that. At one time Afghanistan and Pakistan were beautiful countries (including some of Iran) that conservationists and ecotourists flocked to for experiencing the natural world in full bloom. 

But as to the Iraq vote by Hillary Clinton.

In 2001 she was a freshman Senator. It was only eight months as a US Senator when the Twin Towers came down in New York, the Pentagon was hit and United Airlines Flight 93 impacted to form a crater in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. That sleepy little town heard the impact and the explosion only to realize in a short time it was a downed jet and passengers were completely lost. 

Hillary Clinton had to have experienced the trauma of September 11, 2016 differently from Barack Obama. She was centered on protecting the people of New York as well as the country in which ever way she could. There was no doubt to her the USA would enter a war to stop terrorists that found a weakness in airport security a worthwhile way of killing Americans.

When Iraq came into view, the country was on edge and let's face it in hind sight Dick Cheney and "W" were out building their campaign of fear. When Hillary Clinton faced intelligence that said the USA would experience further danger from Saddam Hussein and the President made speeches to the same outcome, she reflected on the terror of her constituents and she decided she was not going to let anything else happen to them. She had some background to the fact her spouse did not have words of praise for Saddam either.

Hillary Clinton as a freshman Senator did what she stated she had to do. In reflection, of course it was the wrong decision, but, at the time it wasn't. She would be one of 79 US Senators that voted for the Iraq War. That means there were 21 other US Senators that voted no. One was a man I dearly admired, hailed from West Virginia and his name is the Late US Senator Robert Byrd. Senator was not a freshman, not by a long shot. He had been around the block a few times and not all the evidence seemed kosher. No insult intended. The Late US Senator Byrd made a compelling speech on the US Senate floor to drive a no vote. He spoke eloquently, with knowledge and finesse and with a copy of the USA Constitution in his jacket pocket. His speech, under normal circumstance would have stopped the invasion by the USA. But, with lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pennsylvania still in shock, the country in fear with a campaign of fear by the US President and Vice President there was no doubt US Senator Robert Byrd's words did not impress many. But, it did impress 21 US Senators that voted no. That type of experience and conviction to peace does not come easily.   

Hillary Clinton is constantly reminded of her vote and she needs to stop apologizing for it and move on. The American people know how she voted and they know as Secretary of State she used her private email server in her home. She acknowledges responsibility for that, but, that reality doesn't come close to Russian hackers.  

I believe Hillary Clinton was a died in the wool hawk during more of her US Senate career. However, I also believe her four years of taking on the responsibility of Secretary of State has provided her a clear understanding of where and when diplomacy works and when it doesn't. I think being Secretary of State has honed the hawk. I think she will be a better President because of her experience confronting September 11th up close and personal, realizing how the Iraq War was primarily driven by propaganda and her personal knowledge of dealing with leaders around the world without having the direction of guns to point in a direction. She now knows when diplomacy works and when it does not. I do not believe she is the hawk she used to be, but, I also believe she will use it if and when necessary. She will still have the American people to deal with and they are not interested in repeating the Iraq War mistake that propagated Daesh out of the Saddam Ba'athists.

I also believe Russian President Vladimir Putin can be a very shrewd character. See, Donald Trump as a following in Russia. His strong man character is received well there. To the popular notion of Donald Trump in Russia, President Putin has stated Donald Trump will make a great President of the USA. I guess a reset button is not exactly a strong man persona. 

I believe if Donald Trump is elected President there will be a friendship with Russia as never before and the USA will ultimately abandon any ideas of a free and democratic Ukraine and opt for Putin's insight and hope for a better quality of life for the people of the Ukraine. But, basically, the broken treaty that has lead Russia to impinge on the Crimea and push violence on Ukraine's eastern border and shrugs off the Minsk II will be sacrificed for Russia oil in the markets to improve the global economy. The Ukraine people will no longer have a strong alliance with the USA, but, may still be part of the ambitions of the country to join NATO. Whether a Trump presidency would destroy the Ukraine's hopes of aligning with NATO is probably a given. Ukraine would once again become a Russia possession regardless of a new constitution. 

Now, if Hillary Clinton is elected, President Vladimir Putin will use that fact to CONTINUE a propaganda campaign to increase tensions between China and other countries in the Pacific to move toward convention/nuclear war.

See Donald Trump is a pawn to President Putin in a very dangerous game that will result in USA surrender to searching for a "Republican Wealth Economy" again or it will lead to increased tensions between the USA and Russia.

If there is increased tensions between the USA and Russia it would not server global security well. Every country on Earth is suppose to be partners to end Daesh. That priority is vital to global security. That should be the priority at the United Nations and Russia should be a part of that. I think Russia should springboard off the G20 meeting into a diplomatic directive to begin again relations with other countries that will increase the Russian economy as it moves out of self directed isolation. There is only one person that can do that and it is Former Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Basically, do Americans wants to pander to the rest of the world to allow Wall Street wealth or do Americans want their country to be strong in the resolve to dissolve human rights abuses around the world by growing economies with other countries to ELIMINATE poverty, the driving force of extremism?

I know I have made up my mind. I hope all Americans will do the same to the elections of 2016.

I also like the fact Hillary Clinton recognizes the FACT the climate crisis is here and the USA needs to lead to end the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing the Sixth Extinction and severe and fatal weather.