I love you dearly, David. Like a brother. But, kindly remember from here on out that you don't hand the Palestinians the game ball, okay?
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Mr. Romney cannot say the pundits for Obama are showing snippets of the dinner party.
WATCH: Full Secret Video of Private Romney Fundraiser (click title to entry - thank you)
David Corn is correct. Romney wanted the public to hear the entire exchange
to justify His words. I am not so sure any of his words justify his point of view
to donors. His comments on foreign relations will set the Mid-east into violence
that may never stop. His words about Palestinians are outrageous and actually
aligns with his statements in his visit to Israel where he was backed by
Sheldon Adelson (click here).
There is no way Romney can be trusted with foreign relations and if he were
to be president, his State Department would be filled with Neocons. So, a vote
for Romney is a vote for war. A presidential candidate cannot make such
inflammatory statements and expect to be elected. He is wrong in every way.
I wish David Corn did not put the entire dinner party out there. It is disastrous and brings into view the words of Nicholas Kristof's editorial, "The Foreign Relations Fumbler (click here)." Romney, without question, has and is causing
foreign relation problems for the USA. He is not competent when it comes to
this vital component as President.
Mitt Romney is specialized. He specializes in making 'mad money' through the
Wall Street paradigm. He is incapable of sincere policy at the federal level of
our government.
Reverend Sharpton stated a large percentage of the 47% Mr. Romney referred
to at the dinner party is actually within his own constituency. It is true. The
southeast states below the 35th Latitude in the USA are impoverished. I find
Reverend Sharpton's willingness to bring this to the attention of the country more than helpful to the Romney campaign. See, Romney is 'victimizing' his own election. No one can state Reverend Sharpton is not fair in his opinions of the political campaigns in the USA.
Willard Mitt Romney believes buying an election will be doing the nation a
great favor. There is no doubt he wants to be POTUS. The problem is he is
not qualified. His campaign is shooting from the hip and not even bothering
to do sincere research regarding the needs of the country reflected in his
policies and statements to constituents, even those he is seeking the trust
of monies.
I think his campaign is very sad. He is used to a great deal of power as a CEO and Director of Olympic Games. But, he is not at all used to prudent measures
in leveraging that power when it comes to the lives of Americans, be it domestic or abroad.
Romney is not capable. The USA has no reason for war anywhere in the world. It has partners internationally that can provide intelligence if the leaders of
our country would only follow it and make it a priority.
We have had CEOs in the Executive Branch before. They TYPICALLY do well in delegating authority but never taking responsibility for the delegation they do. So, when the FBI or CIA comes to the President with a memo entitled, "Bin Laden Known to Strike Within the USA," we need someone who puts themselves in charge of the next measure to end that possibility, NOT, someone who delegates it back out for MORE STUDY.
Mitt Romney wanted the full tape. Here it is.
David Corn is correct. Romney wanted the public to hear the entire exchange
to justify His words. I am not so sure any of his words justify his point of view
to donors. His comments on foreign relations will set the Mid-east into violence
that may never stop. His words about Palestinians are outrageous and actually
aligns with his statements in his visit to Israel where he was backed by
Sheldon Adelson (click here).
There is no way Romney can be trusted with foreign relations and if he were
to be president, his State Department would be filled with Neocons. So, a vote
for Romney is a vote for war. A presidential candidate cannot make such
inflammatory statements and expect to be elected. He is wrong in every way.
I wish David Corn did not put the entire dinner party out there. It is disastrous and brings into view the words of Nicholas Kristof's editorial, "The Foreign Relations Fumbler (click here)." Romney, without question, has and is causing
foreign relation problems for the USA. He is not competent when it comes to
this vital component as President.
Mitt Romney is specialized. He specializes in making 'mad money' through the
Wall Street paradigm. He is incapable of sincere policy at the federal level of
our government.
Reverend Sharpton stated a large percentage of the 47% Mr. Romney referred
to at the dinner party is actually within his own constituency. It is true. The
southeast states below the 35th Latitude in the USA are impoverished. I find
Reverend Sharpton's willingness to bring this to the attention of the country more than helpful to the Romney campaign. See, Romney is 'victimizing' his own election. No one can state Reverend Sharpton is not fair in his opinions of the political campaigns in the USA.
Willard Mitt Romney believes buying an election will be doing the nation a
great favor. There is no doubt he wants to be POTUS. The problem is he is
not qualified. His campaign is shooting from the hip and not even bothering
to do sincere research regarding the needs of the country reflected in his
policies and statements to constituents, even those he is seeking the trust
of monies.
I think his campaign is very sad. He is used to a great deal of power as a CEO and Director of Olympic Games. But, he is not at all used to prudent measures
in leveraging that power when it comes to the lives of Americans, be it domestic or abroad.
Romney is not capable. The USA has no reason for war anywhere in the world. It has partners internationally that can provide intelligence if the leaders of
our country would only follow it and make it a priority.
We have had CEOs in the Executive Branch before. They TYPICALLY do well in delegating authority but never taking responsibility for the delegation they do. So, when the FBI or CIA comes to the President with a memo entitled, "Bin Laden Known to Strike Within the USA," we need someone who puts themselves in charge of the next measure to end that possibility, NOT, someone who delegates it back out for MORE STUDY.
If Romney is standing by his statements on the Mother Jones' tape then he is simply money hungry and convinced money will win him the presidency.
The increase in food stamp / SNAP use started under Bush.
There have been millions of Americans abandoned by the USA government in its policies under Bush that lost everything. They have emotionally recovered from the devastation and are retraining. They are increasing their degrees and expertise. They are seeking jobs and to pull the rug out from under them will only undermine the growth of the USA economy.
Romney is a desperate man uncaring to be honest with his donors or the people he seeks for votes!
It is incomprehensible for any presidential candidate to cast off 47% of the electorate as hopeless in achieving their understanding of policies that will improve personal outcomes.
Besides, in the tape it was laughable, Romney states, 47%, 48%, 49%, 4-...
The "4-" is the real gaff in the tape. Unfortunately even the arithmetic of the Right Wing didn't have a higher number to follow 49% beginning with a four. Romney has two degrees from Harvard? They must have started with a BA in something because ANY BS can count.
There have been millions of Americans abandoned by the USA government in its policies under Bush that lost everything. They have emotionally recovered from the devastation and are retraining. They are increasing their degrees and expertise. They are seeking jobs and to pull the rug out from under them will only undermine the growth of the USA economy.
Romney is a desperate man uncaring to be honest with his donors or the people he seeks for votes!
It is incomprehensible for any presidential candidate to cast off 47% of the electorate as hopeless in achieving their understanding of policies that will improve personal outcomes.
Besides, in the tape it was laughable, Romney states, 47%, 48%, 49%, 4-...
The "4-" is the real gaff in the tape. Unfortunately even the arithmetic of the Right Wing didn't have a higher number to follow 49% beginning with a four. Romney has two degrees from Harvard? They must have started with a BA in something because ANY BS can count.
The idea Israel and Iran should have any nuclear capacity is a joke.
They are both counting on having the wind blow in the right direction.
Idiots.
The Middle East should be VOID of any nuclear capacity. It should be a "No Go Zone" for nuclear capacity, peaceful or otherwise.
I am quite sure Israel FEELS secure with the idea of nuclear weapons, but, to actually employ them in the immediate vicinity would guarantee the nuclear illness of vast amounts of their own people through radiation fallout alone. Israel's ONLY realistic capacity to protect itself is through conventional weapons. The Israelis are very good at developing and manufacturing conventional weapons.
To actually use nuclear capacity anywhere along the Mediterranean Sea would destroy and taint economies and shipping lanes for hundreds of years. It is not possible to have nuclear capacity in this area. It is a hideous idea that endangers people by the simple fact a nuclear rod exists anywhere.
The countries in the region have to take a strong stand against nuclear capacity and demand every nation obey Non-Proliferation. It is the ONLY way to protect the people of these nations.
Idiots.
The Middle East should be VOID of any nuclear capacity. It should be a "No Go Zone" for nuclear capacity, peaceful or otherwise.
I am quite sure Israel FEELS secure with the idea of nuclear weapons, but, to actually employ them in the immediate vicinity would guarantee the nuclear illness of vast amounts of their own people through radiation fallout alone. Israel's ONLY realistic capacity to protect itself is through conventional weapons. The Israelis are very good at developing and manufacturing conventional weapons.
To actually use nuclear capacity anywhere along the Mediterranean Sea would destroy and taint economies and shipping lanes for hundreds of years. It is not possible to have nuclear capacity in this area. It is a hideous idea that endangers people by the simple fact a nuclear rod exists anywhere.
The countries in the region have to take a strong stand against nuclear capacity and demand every nation obey Non-Proliferation. It is the ONLY way to protect the people of these nations.
Nuclear Iran?
After the tsunami of the Japanese nuclear plants, every country in the world has to question the wise use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Nuclear power in a third world country is the worst idea for peaceful use of such energy. They do not have the expertise to handle disasters, they do not value their own people in ways that would require prudent thinking in the way these reactors are placed in relation to populous.
There are many, many considerations when nuclear power is employed rather than alternatives energies. Even Russia, when it comes to Chernobyl, has to admit the civilian population was effected. Three Mile Island in the USA was a huge event requiring 'rethink' of all the measures to contain disasters.
The paradigm for using nuclear power for peaceful purposes has to be re-standardized. The IAEA has to place higher priorities on human life should a disaster occur on every country on the globe.
The Japanese tsunami, no different than Chernobyl, will be polluting the oceans for decades if not centuries. It is not acceptable. At all! The oceans provide valuable service to people from every country, especially Third World Countries. It is not acceptable in any way to pollute the oceans with such toxic materials as occur with nuclear reactor accidents. It is not acceptable to devalue human life and their food sources for the sake of nuclear energy.
Iran is not one of the five nations accepted in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so the idea they would seek nuclear weapons as a means to provide some kind of security to their nation is wrong. It is just wrong.
It is wrong in the worst way because it opens the Iranian people to danger in simply being a country with nuclear weapon capacity. Iran does not even have to use the weapons to be a target. When inflammatory speech comes from a nuclear power prepared to kill other people with nuclear weapons that is incentive enough to seek prevention in whatever way necessary.
Does China? Russia? France? The United Kingdom use inflammatory speech in regard their nuclear stockpiles? Absolutely not. Why? Because they do not even admire their nuclear stockpiles anymore as a means to protect their people. It is not a means to protect a nation, it is a means to destroy vast numbers of people.
The only time the USA touted their nuclear capacity as a weapon of choice was when idiots like Bush / Cheney were too scared for engaging in illegal wars that they used the nuclear capacity of the USA as a back drop. Never before or since has the USA used the nuclear stockpiles as a back drop to aggression around the globe.
Long before any nation's leader touts their nuclear stockpiles as a weapon of choice while engaging inflammatory speech there needs to be a clear understanding as to their ability to control such outcomes. Inflammatory speech from a nation intent on using nuclear capacity and in the case of Pakistan, India, North Korea and potentially Iran they are doing ILLEGALLY. There is a global understanding these countries, including Israel, contain nuclear capacity illegally.
I remind there were countries with nuclear weapon capacity that have removed their stockpiles.
What nations? Just Libya?
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa
Ohhh, we forgot about them. We forgot how prudent decisions to stand down from nuclear capacity took place with leaders of many countries. They didn't want to be a target and / or their political stability was in question.
Non-proliferation is the only way to peace and stability in every country in the world. It is the only way we should value nuclear ability either peaceful or weapons. It is the only way we should seek to love our children's security today and in future.
Nuclear ability of a nation is not an asset, it is a danger.
Nuclear power in a third world country is the worst idea for peaceful use of such energy. They do not have the expertise to handle disasters, they do not value their own people in ways that would require prudent thinking in the way these reactors are placed in relation to populous.
There are many, many considerations when nuclear power is employed rather than alternatives energies. Even Russia, when it comes to Chernobyl, has to admit the civilian population was effected. Three Mile Island in the USA was a huge event requiring 'rethink' of all the measures to contain disasters.
The paradigm for using nuclear power for peaceful purposes has to be re-standardized. The IAEA has to place higher priorities on human life should a disaster occur on every country on the globe.
The Japanese tsunami, no different than Chernobyl, will be polluting the oceans for decades if not centuries. It is not acceptable. At all! The oceans provide valuable service to people from every country, especially Third World Countries. It is not acceptable in any way to pollute the oceans with such toxic materials as occur with nuclear reactor accidents. It is not acceptable to devalue human life and their food sources for the sake of nuclear energy.
Iran is not one of the five nations accepted in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so the idea they would seek nuclear weapons as a means to provide some kind of security to their nation is wrong. It is just wrong.
It is wrong in the worst way because it opens the Iranian people to danger in simply being a country with nuclear weapon capacity. Iran does not even have to use the weapons to be a target. When inflammatory speech comes from a nuclear power prepared to kill other people with nuclear weapons that is incentive enough to seek prevention in whatever way necessary.
Does China? Russia? France? The United Kingdom use inflammatory speech in regard their nuclear stockpiles? Absolutely not. Why? Because they do not even admire their nuclear stockpiles anymore as a means to protect their people. It is not a means to protect a nation, it is a means to destroy vast numbers of people.
The only time the USA touted their nuclear capacity as a weapon of choice was when idiots like Bush / Cheney were too scared for engaging in illegal wars that they used the nuclear capacity of the USA as a back drop. Never before or since has the USA used the nuclear stockpiles as a back drop to aggression around the globe.
Long before any nation's leader touts their nuclear stockpiles as a weapon of choice while engaging inflammatory speech there needs to be a clear understanding as to their ability to control such outcomes. Inflammatory speech from a nation intent on using nuclear capacity and in the case of Pakistan, India, North Korea and potentially Iran they are doing ILLEGALLY. There is a global understanding these countries, including Israel, contain nuclear capacity illegally.
I remind there were countries with nuclear weapon capacity that have removed their stockpiles.
What nations? Just Libya?
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa
Ohhh, we forgot about them. We forgot how prudent decisions to stand down from nuclear capacity took place with leaders of many countries. They didn't want to be a target and / or their political stability was in question.
Non-proliferation is the only way to peace and stability in every country in the world. It is the only way we should value nuclear ability either peaceful or weapons. It is the only way we should seek to love our children's security today and in future.
Nuclear ability of a nation is not an asset, it is a danger.
"Green on Blue MURDERS," is that what they are called?
It is a sovereignty issue for Afghanistan.
There is only one way to handle it. Treat the USA military training as if a prison yard. Every training session has to take place within a walled facility with armed USA military on the walls facing the yard and facing the street. Just that simple.
There is to be no friendship gatherings between the two forces and no Afghan military will be allowed near the USA military until the point when Karzai, Commander and Chief, can GUARANTEE there will be no attacks on USA military on a training mission.
When the USA military goes into the streets and on missions with trainees, there are always to be more USA soldiers than Afghan soldiers. All training missions and 'street review' are under the tightest security and not revealed until the Afghan military is assembled and explained their orders.
There will be no more Green on Blue murders. There will be no more breach of sovereignty of the USA military or the nation of Afghanistan. Karzai needs to get his act together and pandering to the violent is not the way to do it.
Violence in Afghanistan is over. And for those that refuse to believe it, then it is shoot / kill on sight. If this faux loyalty to the Taliban and al Qaeda and Haquani and extremism continues, then the people traitors to their own government and the encampment will be the enemy as much as the individual.
Believe me, I would not be admired in the USA military by today's standards.
There is only one way to handle it. Treat the USA military training as if a prison yard. Every training session has to take place within a walled facility with armed USA military on the walls facing the yard and facing the street. Just that simple.
There is to be no friendship gatherings between the two forces and no Afghan military will be allowed near the USA military until the point when Karzai, Commander and Chief, can GUARANTEE there will be no attacks on USA military on a training mission.
When the USA military goes into the streets and on missions with trainees, there are always to be more USA soldiers than Afghan soldiers. All training missions and 'street review' are under the tightest security and not revealed until the Afghan military is assembled and explained their orders.
There will be no more Green on Blue murders. There will be no more breach of sovereignty of the USA military or the nation of Afghanistan. Karzai needs to get his act together and pandering to the violent is not the way to do it.
Violence in Afghanistan is over. And for those that refuse to believe it, then it is shoot / kill on sight. If this faux loyalty to the Taliban and al Qaeda and Haquani and extremism continues, then the people traitors to their own government and the encampment will be the enemy as much as the individual.
Believe me, I would not be admired in the USA military by today's standards.
One of the worst comments I heard about the global unrest is, "They hate us because they hate us."
That simply gives permission for war. That is part of the problem with new democracies. People kill each other because of the angers of the past.
People do hate the United States. Diplomacy is not about happy talk. Diplomacy is about setting limits on hate and averting war. It is always about changing the course of hate and building relationships instead. Diplomacy is on going and until there are actions by nations that cannot be extinguished by peaceful measure; never giving up on peace works.
Today, in China there are demonstrations focused on the Japanese. Does that mean Japan simply gives up and states, "They hate us because they hate us?" Seriously, now.
If people are protesting the USA while stating it was an offensive video about Mohammad that has them enraged, then it is a video that has them enraged. Taking that reason away from the protests and violence and assigning it to hatred alone, removes reasons to move forward with peace and continued measures to end the violence. Removing measures to peace is a good idea?
I think the unrest over the video has multiple reasons, but, for the USA to assign 'nothing' as a reason for them is a mistake. Including 'nothing' as a possibility is just being ready for a different reality and protecting from that, but, to assign an understanding rather than take the ? excuses ? seriously to protests and violence is not a venue for moving forward, it is a venue of war. I reject it.
We are not going to war over a video and we are certainly not going to war in a country without contained security to simply repeat the same mistakes of Iraq and kill more. One has to ask how prudent it was to have a diplomatic outpost in Libya rather than a protected consulate in Tripoli.
I admire Ambassador Stevens. He is irreplaceable, but, his bravery was not prudent. We have seen this in Libya before. People too confident of their standing to act prudently. Journalists were lost in Libya because they treated their expertise as they did when they were imbeds with USA troops. They over reached and they were too willing to be ambitious to find the truth in a very dangerous place and time.
Videographer among Libyan civilians (click here) who roamed through the consulate after rampage over anti-Islam film last week said he heard someone call out he had tripped over a dead body, but ‘he was alive.’
If he was alive why wasn't he saved and brought to clean air to breath? The questions continue to mount without sound answers to date regarding what occurred in Benghazi.
Ambassador Stevens was one of a kind, but, in all honesty his expertise did not prepare him for a power vacuum in an ending war. I am sure he weighed the idea of a larger military contingent when he traveled, but, as many before him (ie: McChrystal and USA military officers and commanders in Afghanistan since McChrystal) the appearance of strength over a welcoming posture to a populous is sometimes worse.
People do hate the United States. Diplomacy is not about happy talk. Diplomacy is about setting limits on hate and averting war. It is always about changing the course of hate and building relationships instead. Diplomacy is on going and until there are actions by nations that cannot be extinguished by peaceful measure; never giving up on peace works.
Today, in China there are demonstrations focused on the Japanese. Does that mean Japan simply gives up and states, "They hate us because they hate us?" Seriously, now.
If people are protesting the USA while stating it was an offensive video about Mohammad that has them enraged, then it is a video that has them enraged. Taking that reason away from the protests and violence and assigning it to hatred alone, removes reasons to move forward with peace and continued measures to end the violence. Removing measures to peace is a good idea?
I think the unrest over the video has multiple reasons, but, for the USA to assign 'nothing' as a reason for them is a mistake. Including 'nothing' as a possibility is just being ready for a different reality and protecting from that, but, to assign an understanding rather than take the ? excuses ? seriously to protests and violence is not a venue for moving forward, it is a venue of war. I reject it.
We are not going to war over a video and we are certainly not going to war in a country without contained security to simply repeat the same mistakes of Iraq and kill more. One has to ask how prudent it was to have a diplomatic outpost in Libya rather than a protected consulate in Tripoli.
I admire Ambassador Stevens. He is irreplaceable, but, his bravery was not prudent. We have seen this in Libya before. People too confident of their standing to act prudently. Journalists were lost in Libya because they treated their expertise as they did when they were imbeds with USA troops. They over reached and they were too willing to be ambitious to find the truth in a very dangerous place and time.
Videographer among Libyan civilians (click here) who roamed through the consulate after rampage over anti-Islam film last week said he heard someone call out he had tripped over a dead body, but ‘he was alive.’
If he was alive why wasn't he saved and brought to clean air to breath? The questions continue to mount without sound answers to date regarding what occurred in Benghazi.
Ambassador Stevens was one of a kind, but, in all honesty his expertise did not prepare him for a power vacuum in an ending war. I am sure he weighed the idea of a larger military contingent when he traveled, but, as many before him (ie: McChrystal and USA military officers and commanders in Afghanistan since McChrystal) the appearance of strength over a welcoming posture to a populous is sometimes worse.
By ,
...The planned promotion (click here) to head the U.S. European Command will allow Allen to remain deeply involved in Afghanistan policy and work with NATO allies who have maintained a presence in the country despite the war’s growing unpopularity in Europe.
Defense officials cautioned that the plan could change if conditions in Afghanistan shift.
“No final decisions have been made regarding a follow-on assignment for Gen. Allen or the future of European Command,” said Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman.
If the White House nominates Allen, the general will have to be confirmed by the Senate....
The other day, President Hamad Karzai criticized the USA mission in Afghanistan for involving civilians in an attack against those killing our troops. We know for a fact al Qaeda and the Taliban strategically use Pakistani military units on the border and civilians as human shields. That is not the problem of the USA, that is the problem of the Afghan people. They allow the Taliban to continue to victimize them. Do we allow our soldiers to be killed because Afghan people cannot reject the infiltration of the Taliban? Absolutely not. I am unapologetic for the deaths of Pakistani military or the Afghan civilians knowing they are willing to be victims to those seeking to kill the USA military intent on establishing stability in the region.
Do they actually hate us because they hate us? No. They hate not just us but those they victimize as well. The Taliban and al Qaeda have no reverence for life of soldiers or civilians, yet we are suppose to be careful according to Karzai. I don't think so. The USA military knows exactly what they are doing. These are not errors, they are removing dangerous criminals from the country and saving USA lives in the balance.
Do they hate us because they hate us?
No.
However, they might hate us because we are undefeatable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)