**This can also be found at www.Presidentialraceblog.com, where I am a contributing author.**

There are few things that can be named that are the bane of not only multiple Presidents of the past, but the current and future President as well. Perhaps the most serious issue is the most complicated as well. Iran.

In one word I describe a key exporter of oil, a terrorist supporting nation, a potentially nuclear armed country, and a fanatically Islamic regime not to mention a government that would prefer to see America destroyed and in ashes since the 1970’s. Talk about a mouthful. I mean there is no simple answer to how this nation should be dealt with. Unless you listen to the Presidential candidates.

“On the Democratic side, there has been too much silliness on the issue of engagement, and a candidate's particular choice of words for conditions for talking. The rhetoric on the Republican side ignores a bunch of important questions - the Iranian response, our standing in the region and around the world, and poisoning relations with Iran for generations to come."

Why are the candidates so one-sided and tunnel-visioned? Because they are pandering to their respective parties to gain the nomination. While that seems well and good, as it’s been the manner in which the candidates have discussed Iraq, terrorism and most of the vital issues in this election-cycle, it has ramifications. It also fails to present a realistic outlook on what actions we need to take.

I consistently believe that any candidate that cannot present a plan that envisions, or even allows for; the best outcome for the nation does not deserve to be President. That does not mean that a poll-watching, publicity bandwagoner deserves the position any better. But we need to hear voices that can lead, not react to polls or hedge their bets as they await the other candidates’ responses. Yet that is what we are getting.

Iran has made it clear that they wish to see America crushed. It’s been televised in their speeches for decades. It’s been the sentiment since they took our embassy personnel hostage. And there is no doubt that given an opportunity they would use a nuclear weapon against the U.S., if not several if they had them.

But to attack Iran is to invite the shutdown of oil imports to America immediately. To impose sanctions is to invite higher world oil prices, and inflict pain on our economy. To simply have talks is to stalemate, allowing the development of the very weapons we don’t want and should not allow development.

Obviously we need a multiple pronged tactic that employs several strategies all at once. But multiple tactics and the implication that far more severe actions can take place only when the opponent believes the actions can be taken. Democrats have made it clear to date, that they will take virtually no action that would involve the military, and the Republicans have virtually guaranteed military responses. Where is the one person, at least, that can convey a credible ability to do more than just one thing.

As tensions grow, the threat increases, and the time and power of our current President wanes with the nearing of the next election (not to mention comments from political rivals that weaken and insult the sitting President) we need to see someone step up.
Maybe there is time left for one candidate to become Presidential in their stance, but not as long as they are all so preoccupied with trying to buy cheap votes by looking Presidential. And unlike comedian Billy Crystal’s character Nando Fernando famous saying, it is not “better to look good than feel good.” Our President needs to be more than an image of leadership, and the reason is again just one word.

Iran.

Labels: election 2008, Iran, nuclear weapons, oil

Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 1...

So the answer is NO. Senator Clinton would not make the pledge. Thus the possibility of Iran with a nuclear weapon just went up dramatically if she wins the Presidency. There is a window of action that Senator Clinton seems unwilling to take, which could give Iran a weapon that could kill millions of Americans. Add the fact they support the destruction of America and that is a scary thought, even if the percentage chance is only 5%.

“MR. RUSSERT: [Following up the above quote] Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.

MR. RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.”

So while it is possible for Senator Clinton to release these records, she won’t do it. Rather she wants to wait until 2012, after the entire term of this election cycle. Even if there is nothing to be found, it creates an appearance of duplicity.

On top of that, if we recall the first quote you will recall that Sen. Clinton mentions 35 years of service to the public. Perhaps some of that work is in the records being withheld. If that is the case, and thus the Senator has more than just 5 years of service in public office, then why not let us know that? What is it she did with President Bill Clinton that both are ensuring we cannot know until after the 2008 Presidential term?

Are we to believe that Senator Clinton does not speak with her husband, and thus did not know he would request to hide the information? Has she so little influence with her devoted husband that she could not get him to lift the ban? According to her answers it would appear both are true. And if not then as I said it is a purposeful act.

Continued in part 3...

Labels: Democratic Party, National Archives, nuclear weapons, political debate, Senator Clinton, Tim Russert

Well here is something that has me wondering. The Presidential candidates and other noted political figures have all made statements about the nuclear program in Iran. Let me correct myself, several of the candidates, not all. But the fact that any have commented is interesting.


This occurred at the press conference hosted by The Israel Project (TIP). The goal is stated as increased sanctions and pressure to cause Iran to end their nuclear efforts. Which is a pretty strong stance for several candidates, especially when the efforts to retreat from Iraq are considered.

This is important to think about because Iraq is directly connected to this. The connection is that Iran is helping to create instability in Iraq. Because of that the foreign policy of the next President may dictate how the Middle East will be over the next decade.

Consider this. If America retreats from Iraq, and pressures Iran with sanctions, Iran must try to absorb parts of Iraq (or effectively control them) to avoid the economic pain. At the same time, Iran can use the disenfranchised to bolster anti-American sentiment – promoting terrorists that would seek to attack Americans world-wide. On top of that, there is no guarantee that Iran would stop its nuclear ambitions.

That is scary, terrorists with nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, if America stays in Iraq and continues to fight Iran will still continue to support instability in the region. Not as much as without a U.S. presence, but still all the same. The economic pressure cannot be offset (or is minimized) by gaining access to Iraq. Fewer terrorists can be trained and any continued efforts of nuclear weapons can have the added fear of a pre-emptive strike by American forces. The cost of all this is American soldier lives. Not tens of thousands, but thousands per year.

Neither situation is foolproof. Nor will either make the U.S. public happy. It will cost American lives either way. And the Middle East will continue to be in turmoil for a decade at least.

Which effort is best? Which outcome is most likely? There is no answer. There is also no answer on what plan is the best from ANY of the Presidential candidates. One of the candidates must come up with a plan and let us know what is going on. Obviously any plan will not satisfy the whole of America. But a plan is better than none at all. I think everyone will agree on that.

So the question is, to prevent/persuade/deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, what do we do in Iraq?

Labels: election 2008, Iran, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, presidential candidate, terrorism, The Israel Project

Continued from Part 2...

Now is there more carbon dioxide in the air than 3 centuries ago, yes. Have temperatures gone up in recent decades? Yes. Are the 2 connected? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know enough to be able to tell. Too many things are involved factors. The moon has been steadily moving away from the Earth, changing tides and weather patterns. The number of lifeforms on the planet has increased and changed the pattern of congregation, increasing localized temperatures and gaseous concentrations. Erosion and construction have changed the face of the planet, changing wind patterns and waterflows. Beyond these things there is the fact that the cycles of the Earth are unknown to us. You may have noticed that there has been no mention of the change of the magnetic polarity of the planet. This is believed to have changed several times over several thousand years and possibly connected to several ice ages. Yes there have been several ice ages. Oh, did I leave out tectonic shifting of the continents?

The point is that there is no factual knowledge, but lots of hype. Reducing carbon emissions can’t hurt, but to scream how this will end the world in a decade or 2 is irresponsible at the best. Five years from now we may find that the weather is not changing, or that it was due to sunspots. That’s how science works.

To say that this is the biggest threat to the planet is merely political hype. I’m tired of hearing about it. Plant some more trees and shrubs and get over it. Let’s focus on the serious problems nuclear weapons and biological irresponsibility. Osama bin Laden or the next wacko with a purpose can cause the immediate death of millions or more. Worry about that. Maybe an asteroid.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: biological weapons, carbon emission, global warming, nuclear weapons

I was just watching a program on the History Channel, Last Days On Earth, which mentions the 7 most deadly events that can end life on Earth as we know it. It’s quite interesting. The order in which the events are listed is kind of funny, in that the most political is the most likely. If you ask me, that’s just bull.

Think about it. The chance of the Earth being struck by a large space-born mass is incalculable. The reason being we have no idea what is happening in space. Seriously. There is maybe 1% of the sky being watched at any particular sky on any given day. Not a heck of a lot. If something is coming at us, we wouldn’t even see it, unless we got really lucky and it was really close.

But even if we did, there is virtually nothing we could do about it. Hollywood movies aside, the reality is that we have nothing that could stop a space-born body. Between the mass and speed that an object might have, nuclear missiles would be little better than throwing a pebble at a howitzer shell and expecting it to be deflected or stopped. Any other solution is a pipedream or far outside our current capabilities. Several ideas, like placing a solar parachute to slow/change the trajectory or landing on the object is beyond the technology we have today. In addition it is so severely under-funded that it’s infessible. Suffice to say that a planet killer (an object about 6 miles in dimensions which is not particularly big at all) continues to be exactly that.

A black hole is just not a reality. While they exist and move in space they are noticeable in effect and by sight. They stand out and are incredibly hard to miss. Even with the limited resources we have, it would be noticed. Were one to be close enough to affect the planet, there is nothing we can do about it and death would follow in a decade or less.

The main events leading to our demise are man-made. Or so we are lead to believe. The chance of nuclear war is virtually assured. The ability to make smaller and deadlier weapons, while maintaining the weapons already created, ensures that someone will start to use these weapons. Add to that fact the thought that machines made decades ago maintain many of these weapons, and over time all machines fail. So either by accident or by purpose nuclear weapons are going to change the world.

While nukes are an eventual problem, an unforeseen problem is genetic manipulation. Unlike the plagues of the past, the future problems are most likely going to be man-made. This may be due to a directed action, or through lack of knowledge. The direct action is some madman making disease XYZ and letting it loose. There are more than enough people with the knowledge and facilities available to do so. It’s surprisingly easy enough, microbiology and genetics are taught at virtually every 4-year college and textbooks on the subject are available in every library and the internet. IF anyone thinks someone isn’t working on this now, wake up. Whether its a fanatic or a government agency, dozens of biological weapons have existed since WWI and the number is just growing. Eventually one of them will get out.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: genetic manipulation, History Channel, last days of earth, nuclear weapons

There have been several interesting things ongoing currently with the various candidates. As we see that Democrats are trying to push a defunding of the war in Iraq, which I feel would signal our defeat to our enemies and a lack of resolve, there is also comments from various figures on what might be forth-coming if they are elected.

Senator Clinton has made several statements recently that give me pause. Prior to January 2007 the senator was a staunch supporter of the war (while most of the popularity was still mostly divided I noticed) and is now against. Not only against the plan made by the President, but is seeking to limit the President’s plan. Yet Senator Clinton has no alternate plan to offer. In addition the senator has been speaking about holding conversations to understand our enemies. It is the senator’s opinion, as I understand it, that a dialogue is the key to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, or nations supporting terrorists that wish to attack us for being rich, free and powerful. I would equate that conversation with speaking to the local school bully when he asks for your money. Anyone watching would not be surprised when the bully decides to pummel you for wasting his time.

But Senator Clinton has some thoughts [note that she has not declared any concrete plans or opinions – though to be fair nor has her opponents] on domestic issues as well. The senator has stated, and has been recorded publicly, that she would ‘take the revenues’ from oil companies to use for alternative energy research. I’m sure that will help the stock market, and make all socialists quite happy. Does that mean the next step would be taking the revenues or profits from pharmaceutical companies to pay for a national healthcare system? Then maybe nationalizing entertainment companies so that specific types of movies or television channels exist? Where might this process end?

Lastly Senator Clinton stated that if the war is continuing in January 2009, and she were elected President, she will end the war (“You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.”). Well I’m sure Iran, Osama bin Laden, Al Quida, and any other group that opposes the U.S. will pray for her election. It guarantees their victory in Iraq and long-term. To make such a blanket statement without qualification only emboldens the enemy to continue to fight since they have an unequivocal timeframe that removes any opposition. Not quite the words from a Commander-and-Chief seeking the best result for the nation. But in this case at least I’m glad it isn’t a declared plan. [By the way, I note Senator Clinton has also insulted President Bush by saying he has no power over the war but Congress does, unless she is the President at the time. Quite rude.]

There will be more on other candidates shortly. I will also mention my thoughts of former New York City Mayor Mr. Ruddy Gulliani, especially while I lived in the city with him as Mayor.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, osama bin laden, presidential election, Senator Hillary Clinton

I find things quite interesting lately. Recently the new democratic led Congress has been making a lot of noise ahead of President Bush’s new Iraq strategy. Before the President has even announced word one we see that there are calls to defund the soldiers in Iraq. This I feel is insane.

First the President should be allowed to unveil his new plan without the shrieks of doom and prevention that now fill the air. All that this is doing is provide the enemies of the troops with renewed vigor and impetus. This is so wrong to undercut the President and to show a face of America as being confused and cowardly. I don’t see how these calls to cut and run can be seen any other way. But let me not get ahead of myself.

It is interesting to see that the democrats that were elected to change the policy in Iraq are moving on that mandate. I think that if the current cry to run away with out tail between our legs was conveyed to the public in general there would not have been as many elected. I do not feel that when citizens voted for the change that was never defined they expected these kinds of results. But this is what happens when people run on, and vote for, soundbite politics. Ill-defined policies are later realized in a manner that does not reflect the general consensus, and voter can only blame themselves for this.

I for one must say that I do not agree with anyone that states that they support the troops, but actively debate about removing the funding that directly supports the troops and/or additional troops which directly provide manpower support. Unless I miss understand the word, support, to remove or block either item does not provide for or maintain [as defined by thefreedictionary.com] nor keep from weakening or failing the troops in Iraq. So unless the democrats have found a new meaning for the word support, they have lied to the public and engaged in soundbite rhetoric I feel, which I hate.

I do not question that Iraq needs to be addressed in a new manner. There needs to be changes. No one wants to see our soldiers killed. Everyone would prefer to see our sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, and friends home and safe. But that is not how the world is today. Protectionist and Isolationist polices have never worked in the past and they definitely will not work in the future. Wars take time and there is no timetable that can handily let you know when it’s all over. This is not some kind of athletic competition with a rulebook and a clock counting down to when we are done. To act as if this is now overtime is to admit defeat before we have finished what we started. The repercussion of that failure to complete is far longer lasting and far more deadly.

I am reminded of something that my Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams mentioned when in boot camp. As I recall he said, “Your moms want you to be treated nice. They are afraid of you getting hurt. But the fact is the more you sweat the less you will bleed. Moms of America will get you killed. But I’m not going to let that happen. So boys, prepare to get wild crazy and exotic.” It may have been boot camp but I think you get the point.

And if we don’t follow this simple mantra, the troops will not be supported. They will come home to cheers. Cheers from mothers and fathers and friends across the nation. Even louder will be cheers from the militant factions seeking to control Iraq. Cheers from the Al Quida’s and Iran. Cheers from everyone that will fight to fracture the nation into smaller territories controlled by radicals of various temperaments. Then those cheers will turn into tears. Tears from Americans when the winners that hate our nation come to attack us. Tears from the children who have grown up in a war torn country, fed anti-American rants, firmly believing that every drop of food they didn’t get, the electricity they didn’t have, the education they couldn’t received, the family they lost to civil wars, every wrong in their world stemmed from America. That will be all the motivation they need to attack America and its citizens everywhere in the world.

Think I’m bleak? A tad bit over the top? We didn’t win in Korea, and they are still ready to fight us 50 years later – now with nuclear weapons. We lost in Viet Nam, for many of the same reasons we are about to see now I think, and that cost our troops, divided our nation, and left scars across the world. Most Americans had never heard of a Shiite or a Sunni, yet we learned the words after we lost thousands of lives in one day. If you think that not getting Iraq stable, leaving while it’s still weak and troubled, will not be a problem far worse than what we have seen so far, I think you haven’t thought it all through.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, soundbite politics, supporting troops