I.A.E.A. CHIEF AND IRAN.

Iran's ambition to procure nuclear weapons is something that has to occupy the minds of lawmakers in Congress and the officials of the Obama administration, just as much as the Afghanistan troops debate and the health care reform question.

Even after the censure by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) last Friday in Vienna, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, "with 25 nations backing a resolution demanding that Tehran immediately freeze construction of its newly revealed nuclear facility and heed Security Council resolutions to stop uranium enrichment", Iran continues with its intransigence on coming clean with its nuclear program.

Its chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh to the IAEA declared that "his country would resist pressure, resolutions, sanction(s) and threat of military attack.", so long as the nuclear program Iran was pursuing was for peaceful purposes. The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for defying a U.N.Security Council ban on uranium enrichment--the source of both nuclear fuel and fissile core of warheads--as the organization's chief Mohamed ElBaradei has consistently said, he could not confirm that "Tehran's nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses."

He expressed "serious concern" in that regard, and continued by saying, "Iran's stonewalling of a IAEA probe means, the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program, cannot be excluded.", according to media reports.

However, that was the question; and not many countries believed any assurances that the Iranian authorities were putting out to refute the allegations that Iran's ultimate goal was to make nuclear bombs, and if so, the situation should not be acceptable to the U.S. and its allies, particularly with its (Iran's) threats to annihilate Israel, in view.

Israel was also adding to its arsenal, as announced earlier this week, to protect itself from any kind of attack that would be unleashed by its enemies, and therefore there was the continued insecurity adding to the "tug of war" that has prevailed in the Middle East for so long.

The U.S. has rebuked Iran since the vote by the IAEA of 25 to 3, with the backing from Russia and China to pass the resolution; yet, Iran has continued to be adamant. Therefore, the White House must not stop applying pressure on Iran to comply with U.N. and IAEA resolves, for the sake of a safe and peaceful world.

Take heed, Iran.

YOU ARE WRONG, PRESS SECRETARY GIBBS.

President Obama will be announcing his long awaited additional troop deployment in Afghanistan in a prime time speech to the nation on Tuesday night delivered at the U.S.Military Academy at West Point. What he will actually say is yet unknown, but it will include a "way out" statement, as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has told reporters that, "The president does not see this as an open ended engagement," and " Our time there will be limited. And I think that is important for people to understand."

Many people want no military commitment by the United States in Afghanistan, let alone an additional troops that have been requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commanding officer at the war front. Yet, they will have no solution to the ideological catastrophe that has been caused by extremist Islamic Jihadists, using the propaganda that they are at war with "the devil", in reference to America in particular and its allies in general; and thus culminating into terrorism around the world, with attacks against the U.S. on several occasions; from the bombing of the "Cole" through to the attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and elsewhere on 9/11, 2001. (The United Kingdom, Spain and other countries have had their share of such terror attacks).

The plots to formulate those attacks have always led to persons in that region of the world, such as Usama Bin Laden, who has been protected by the Taliban, and nobody still knew his whereabouts; and thus indicating that the national security of the U.S. would always come into question, when a militant insurgency, as the one in which the Taliban and its cohort Al Qaeda were engaged in, was brewing in that same geographical area, and therefore its (U.S.'s) focus should be on eliminating any threats that the situation might present.

That should be the main target before a way out strategy that Press Secretary Gibbs was expecting the president to countenance or concentrate on in his speech. After all said and done, who would want the U.S. military forces to be fighting unnecessary wars? We all would want them home with their families, as they themselves would want to lead normal lives just as every American; "In the land of the free, and the home of the brave."

However, they are required to protect the nation's interests, wherever that (requirement) is needed; and therefore they must be encouraged to do what they know is their first and foremost duty.

That must not be a "way out" before a "defense" plan, but the other way around, to indicate to the enemy, whoever that may be, of America's determination to defend itself, when it is prompted to do so anywhere in the world.

To achieve that end, the Commander-in-Chief must always exhibit and exude courage in every speech he makes to the U.S. men and women in uniform. He must not be boasting or showing aggrandizement of any type, shape or form; no, far from that kind of portrayal; but that retreat is the last thing he must be thinking about.

Others already understand that the U.S. must not be taken for granted; that it will enter into any dialog with peace in mind, negotiate for a compromise in any dispute; but be ready to deal with its enemies, forthright. So, you are wrong, Press Secretary Gibbs.

The president must be courageous, and tell it like it is.

PROS AND CONS IN CONGRESS.

As President Obama reminisces from the stewed chicken with curry at the state dinner and bash (party), which has been held at the White House to please and pacify the taste-buds of Prime Minister Singh of India and his entourage; two major thoughts are not too far from his mind. They must be the troops that he is supposed to deploy in Afghanistan and the health care votes that Congress, particularly the Senate, must have to clench victory for a bill to pass and eventually become law.

There have been threats by Democrats who intend to vote "no" after the procedural voting that took place last Saturday to bring the issue to the floor of the Senate chamber for debate. The success there by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get the 60 votes was an advancement that was tinted with several compromises from moderate Democrats to keep party unity from coming apart; yet, those threats were still present to bring the process to a grinding halt.

The main reasons were obvious; some of which were abortion and illegal immigration having their monetary and eligibility problems, respectively; and showing up in the Senate bill as well as that of the House of Representatives; but the outstanding one was a "Public Option" or government run insurance plan that most left wing members of the Democratic Party desired to see in the merger bill that would be voted on in the future.

Well, what is Public Option as it appears in the health care reform proposals? It will be a government owned insurance company that will sell insurance plans in competition with private industry. It will research plans that will be appropriate for consumers to sign up on; its premiums will be competitive, if not lower than what are being projected by private insurers. Its aim is to lower the skyrocketing cost of health care as a whole, and to make insurance coverage affordable for all citizens.

So, why is it being denied by some lawmakers who are frowning on the idea and telling Townhall meeting attendees and "Tea Party" participants that it is a bad thing, and it must not be included in the health care reform that is before them?

The campaign against it must come from so many sources; yet, the main one will be health care insurance companies being afraid that it (Public Option) will attract more consumers, and thus cut into their profits. The industry will not be profitable any longer and it will discourage investors to direct their investments elsewhere. That is what is fueling the opposition.

Of course, America happens to be a capitalist nation, and therefore, allowing the government to practically indulge in private enterprise will be against the genre of capitalism. It will be awful for the industrial and international money markets, which must operate under privacy and without restrictions from outside. In other words, Government intervention of any kind must not be allowed, so that yearly gains will increase for these companies, their patrons and shareholders, unchallenged.

Fiscally conservative Democrats are also against it, because of its cost; Republicans wholly think it repulsive. Wall Street will never back it, for the sake of losing profit margins; and it will therefore be an uphill battle for its proponents in Congress.

However, whichever way one looks at it, the health care industry needs reform, to include the 40 to 50 million people who are presently uninsured; and even those who have pre-existing conditions to be inclusive. It cannot remain "as is". Who will win in the last resort; Pros or Cons?

CHAIRMAN REP. OBEY & SEN. LIEBERMAN.

The uproar going on in Washington D.C. today is about money; 1. Money to fund new health care programs being included in the Health Care overhaul plan now before Congress, if there happens to be a single bill that will warrant the support of lawmakers; one that they can have it passed into law. 2. The troop increase in Afghanistan that will perhaps spell the defeat of the Taliban and end the insurgency there. 3. The overall deficit in the nation's budget that requires a strong and stable economy to have it firmly tackled, with the view of completely bridging, paying, if not wiping, it off, to the point of having the national debt that seems to be having an increment that is running into billions of dollars each and every minute, if not every second, being reversed.

The most recent arguments are the ones by the House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, who has told ABC News that, "There ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan."; and the insistence of Senator Joseph Lieberman of not voting for any health care reform that will include a "public option" or government run health insurance plan, because like all such government initiatives, it will go bankrupt and thus, to fall back on taxpayers to pay for it.

Rep. David Obey (D. Wis.) explains that the request of 40,000 troops by Gen. Stanley McChrystal will bring the cost of the war "up to approximately $90 billion a year, or $900 billion over 10 years -- virtually the same as the cost of the Democratic health care plan". He therefore wants to impose a "war tax", because without it the Afghan war will derail the health care plan that President Obama has.

He then goes into the history archives and refers to President Lyndon Johnson's "the Great Society" program being wiped out by the Vietnam War; the Korean War wiping out Harry Truman's "Square Deal" and World War 1 ending the progressive movement before the 1920s, and saying, "In each case, the cost of those wars shut off our ability to pay for anything else."

Both arguments are well versed; but are they sustainable, when 40 million Americans do not have health care insurance coverage; and an insurgency that threatens America's friends, India and Pakistan, to booth, in the part of world that seems volatile, and rife with Islamist extremism, which is being "a clear and present danger" to world peace, and therefore, to the national security of the United States?

Can such issues be ignored; with health care being in disarray in America, in response to Sen. Lieberman; and amid the conflicts and problems in all parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East and in Africa; and of nuclear proliferation being something even the United Nations Organization has no definite solution for?; in attempting to find an answer for Rep. David Obey.

Solutions are what they are in Congress to find; and the soldiers are in the fields to defend and protect the American way of life, and if they (soldiers) are making sacrifices with their lives, why cannot the rest of us make sacrifices with our money and pay taxes that will help them to do so? On one hand, "Obey, a Democrat....made it clear that he is opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he'll demand a new tax -- what he calls a "war tax" -- to pay for it." (ABC News).

Well, on the other hand, there are those who think that wherever there is a threat to the national security of the United States, it must be faced, diplomatically or otherwise; and if Afghanistan is such a place, then everybody must be ready to pay a "war tax".

On health care reform, if nothing is done, the status quo will remain. The Insurance companies will still make their profits, while millions of people suffer needlessly.

Over to you, Sen. Lieberman and Rep. Obey.

TO CRY "WOLF" ON A SUNDAY MORNING?

The vote on Saturday in the Senate, which was 60 to 39 in favor of the Health Care reform bill, was a breath of fresh air to many people. It will allow the debate to begin in the Senate chamber to hammer out a compromised bill that would be merged with the one passed by the House of Representatives only a few weeks back, to become a law of the land.

Although, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was able to garner support of all Democratic Party members to get it through, and it was just a start; but the staunch opposition by the Republicans was still lurking in the shadows to see its (bill's) demise, as they had vowed to stop it "come hell or high water" (origin unknown).

That, however, would remind Americans, when programs like Medicare and Unemployment benefits were being initiated; and there was the same opposing side that was present, and calling for their termination and saying that they were socialist ideas and therefore destructive to the national, as well as political, interest. There should be no gainsaying therefore that they would do all in their power to sabotage the efforts of those who believed in common sense and equality, and who were endeavoring to prevail, and to correct a situation in which some citizens had health care insurance coverage and some did not.

The "have nots" numbered in millions; but who should really care, was the question the opposing side was asking; and they would add that there was a "step by step" approach to resolve the problem; and that the cost was so astronomical, it would destroy the already frail economy and stop the sluggish recovery that the nation now found itself in. Where were they, when the insurance companies were ignoring to do their duty? Did they say anything then?

The Republicans were "pointing to what they see as its flaws. Even if a bill ultimately passes, Republicans hope to delay that moment until well into 2010 -- when all seats in the House and one-third of those in the Senate will be contested -- then make the case to voters that Democrats took their focus off the economy and an unemployment rate above 10%", (AP sources).

"Our goal is to let the American people know what it does for them and to them" Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn) said on "FOX News Sunday; and they used "Medicare payroll taxes for the wealthy and cut Medicare payments to HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, while expanding eligibility for MEDICAID, the federal-state health program for the poor", to make their case. "We think if American people know that, the bill will collapse of its own weight", Mr. Alexander had added.

What he and his collegues failed to tell the world was that Medicare itself was safe, but what was being slashed was the Medicare Advantage which favored the rich and the well to do. In that program, a doctor could write his or her own check by sending "the bill of laden" to the federal government for payment. The government became the payee of enormous sums of money, which was directed to the insurance corporations, those doctors and other accessory medical companies, who nobody, particularly the voters, knew nothing about. They did not want the main "payee", which happened to be the federal government to look and find out where that money was going.

There were others like him, who cried "wolf" on Sunday morning; yet, that did not mean that they were right, or even could be right; for many people were not surprised. They were waiting to be covered by the law, which would finally emerge; and when that should happen, there would be millions of them, who would vote down those who opposed the bill when it was being debated, for them to lose in the 2010 elections. Common sense would tell them to do so; and at that time, many Repulicans would be knocked off their rockers.

This blog does not support any person, groups of persons or any organization. It is the most free piece of writing excerpt ever.

OPRAH WINFREY.

Harpo Studios on Washington Boulevard in Chicago, Illinois, will never be the same after September of 2011, when the Oprah Winfrey Show will cease. It will become part of history; the history of the windy city; and of a young lady who has gained so much fame from zillions of fans all around the globe.

It was a sad scene to see "Ms. O." herself standing on a stage and bidding farewell to an admiring live audience; a crowd of people, women and men; and to the world on millions of television screens cutting across International boundaries; in towns and villages, where the people have watched the show from when they first had the privilege of seeing a television set. The face they could remember most was that of an African-American woman who has achieved stardom through dignity and the dint of hard work.

By her ingenuity, the studios could invite women from all walks of life to a place where they could be in the company of other women, and would feel naturally so, to be themselves. They had flocked there to be part of a show, to talk and mingle with each other and to enjoy life as it should be realized. They had joined a family of friends from every corner of the world; even from where women were not socially recognized or acceptable; but they had the leadership of one person to advise them, chat with them, and even chatter about them; and all in their own best interest.

They had gossiped about personalities and about their own image. They had discussed their role in society, and in so many vicarious ways, had found solutions to problems, their own and those of their kind; and even of others, who were not their kind; men.

That was not just a show. It has been an achievement of profound expectations, capturing the imagination of the smart, the foolish and the in between; to teach, inform, prepare women of all ages for better lives; and to impart to them, both in body and spirit, the importance of their position in all the activities of human kind. It has been a labyrinth of knowledge, not just for women, but a "clear and present" lesson for all humanity to learn from.

Of course, "O" was feisty and repetitive sometimes; she was flamboyant and mellow dramatic at other times, and she even became quarrelsome, contentious, argumentative, belligerent; you name it, and she was that person. Yet, she did all that for fun; but most importantly, for the sake of bringing people together, to learn, to examine, to encourage, to be bold and be able to endure all adversities.

She never, never lost control of herself. The integrity and the gentility of the show were some of her main concerns. She was also a person who had both her feet on the ground, as one could sway her, shove her, shock her; one could do the kind of things that could cause her to lose faith in her fellow human being; but she would not be moved.

Her's was one of the greatest human stories; her's was (and it still is) one of the best shows in the history of the (television) industry; her's was a classic accomplishment that could never be beaten.

Good show, "Ms. O."; all are wishing you the best after this one; all will miss it and you.

SECRETARY GATES & A "SWIFT" DECISION.

The wait for President Obama to decide on troop increase in Afghanistan has been nerve racking for many GOP leaders; and rightfully so, the more the delay, the greater risk there would be for the counterinsurgency plan to be ineffective, as Gen. Stanley MaChrystal had said previously in his report, that the war was more complicated than any other, with the chief heads of the insurgency being in Pakistan, and Iran's Qods Force training and arming the Taliban.

Al Qaeda and "associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan", says the Washington Post, which has leaked an unclassified version of the generals report on Afghanistan, a 66 page document to the Obama administration for review. (Retrieved 11/19/09, Web site, http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/09/general_mccrystals_report_on_a.php).

The headline in the media, "Gates Says Afghan Surge Could Happen Swiftly", makes interesting reading, since many people have anticipated that to agree to the request of the generals on the ground, a decision must be swift to ensure the cohesiveness of their plan, as experience in logistics of troop movement has shown that there are numerous adjustments to be considered in the process, and therefore, time is of the essence.

In a news conference at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said, "any new U.S. forces President Barack Obama sends to Afghanistan could move into the country swiftly, despite logistical hassles that force almost all major deliveries of troops and supplies to go by air."

Must therefore the president continue to procrastinate for another two weeks as being reported at that same news conference, which also featured Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, indicating the gravity of the Afghan situation? It was a heavy burden on the military, and as the Chairman said, it should not be carried out by just the U.S. armed forces.

He, Adm. Mullen, had said to a military audience earlier on Thursday that, "the administration and military have been engaged in a "healthy debate" on what to do in Afghanistan that goes beyond troop levels." "This isn't all just about the military. This isn't all just about the number of troops because we can't do it alone"; and besides providing security in Afghanistan, "we have to have a development plan. We have to have a governance plan that goes hand-in-glove as we go forward," he had added.

Inspite of the many obstacles that some liberal House Democrats opposing a hefty troop increase are placing in Mr. Obama's way, he must endeavor to make the decision "swiftly", for the generals and their soldiers to have the advantage they strategically need to overcome the Taliban. That is the assignment they have been given to accomplish and therefore the president's decision, to increase or not increase troop levels must be expedited, no matter what.

Yet, as Gen MaChrystal has stated in his report, they (he and his soldiers) are "under-resourced", and the general public supports an increase to the Afghan war front; so, over to you, President Obama.
　
　
　

HEALTH CARE REFORM; IT'S OUTCOME.

The stage is set for the controversial Health Care reform legislation, that has balked several times in both the House and the Senate chambers in Congress, to emerge as a tangible venture; with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid revealing his long awaited bill on Wednesday. It will need the 60 votes to get it ready for debate, and that is the hurdle left in the legislative process to bring it to the floor for lawmakers to haggle over its final outcome.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has had the help of White House officials in almost secretive negotiations to choose the parts of two committee-passed bills in order to produce the proper wording that would satisfy moderate Democrats, having Senators Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Blanche in mind, to agree to offer support in getting the bill to be debated, and to realize the procedural vote that could push it through the final stage, and to allow it to be combined with the House approved version, which was passed on a near party-line vote of 220 to 215.

Health Care reform has been President Obama's agenda, since the campaign of 2008 presidential election, and it would be hard pressed on his party to find a bill that would bring relief to more people to have health care insurance coverage than at present, even with skyrocketing costs and expenditures standing in the way. Although, there was the proclivity of the Republican Party to oppose any plan that would be government sponsored, backed by the huge side-line tactics by private insurance corporations to prevent a Public Option program that would be used to sign up all comers; however, the promise was made, and therefore it must be kept.

In other words, the Senate version could also pass, but the procedure to have a health care reform would just have started, when the Senate bill would reach the committee stage, and then the battle to get a legislation to become law, was what the public should be ready for. It would be gruesome, with all the arguments, for and against, being slung everywhere, and legislators would bare their fangs to claw each other's eyes out.

However, the Conference Committee should prepare to absorb the heavy blows of criticism that would be inevitably unavoidable, and proceed to get a merger bill that would pass in both chambers for the president to sign into law.

That would be the compromise the country needed to stop the divisiveness that was tearing it apart. Lawmakers owe that to the American people; to their peace of mind, sanity and the decorum to carry on with their lives.

A better health care, tomorrow.

MUKASEY & GIULIANI Vs HOLDER.

What most New Yorkers do not understand about the trial of Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and his cohorts is that, they are not being charged on ideological grounds. They are felons; they have committed serious crimes against the United States (with the Cole bombing that killed 17 servicemen and the atrocious 9/11 attacks in mind).

They are also "jihadists", meaning that they are soldiers of Allah (their god); and at least, their leader has admitted guilt by saying that he is the mastermind behind the attacks, in collusion with Usama Bin Laden; and therefore soldiers who are caught in the battlefield are not tried in a civil court. They must be tried according to military laws, which in some ways differ from civil laws, and the appropriate venue for them is a war or military tribunal.

Besides, the Department of Justice is purposely spreading the problem from Guantanamo Bay, where the atmosphere is suitable for a trial of the kind in question, because it is sparsely populated, to New York City, which has ten million people. Did anybody think about how the idea of bringing the trial to the city would impact their lives?

Of course, many criminal trials involving terrorists have taken place in New York City in the past; and at that time, there was no Guantanamo facility.

It happened to be the safest place to incarcerate terrorists, for the past eight years, and there was a tribunal setting ready and operational within that facility. So, why deliberately expand a situation that could be safely managed, and with less fear of any kind of incident happening, while the trials of those persons were going on?

The sub-headline on FOX News web site page, which reads, "Holder: Don't Fear 9/11 Trial", makes the whole thing derisive; and it shows how carelessly the decision has come about. It describes the five men as, " 'coward' Sept. 11 mastermind and 4 others"; and at the same time, "urging critics of the plan not to cower in the face of terrorists.".

Not to cower? As said before elsewhere in this blog, so many of such trials have happened in the city, like the trials of the culprits who perpetrated the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. New Yorkers have never been afraid of anything. Period. They have the best police force in the country, prepared to handle any kind and all situations.

His critics, however, include the best minds in law enforcement in the U.S., such as his predecessor Michael Mukasey and former mayor Rudy Giuliani, and he, the attorney general, is still resisting, and insisting that his decision is a right one, while they are saying that New York City is not where the trial has to be held.

The plan, therefore, goes to show that the U.S now has an attorney general "who can't see the forest, but for the trees". In other words, if such law enforcement giants as Mukasey and Giuliani cannot be listened to, then it is not just New York City that must have serious concerns, but the whole nation.

It would be a good thing for him to overturn his decision, and to hold such trials in Guantanamo Bay, where some of the conspirators have been living for the past seven or eight years. That should be a good reason enough for them to be tried there.

OVER TO YOU, MAYOR BLOOMBERG.

By now, the volume of emails reaching the Department of Justice has quadrupled, if not shooting through the roof, with people of all walks of life objecting to Attorney General Eric Holder's idea to put five Guantanamo inmates on trial in a civil court in New York City.

Many realize that the decision to do so happens to be based on two specific reasons, and they are, to show the world that the United States is open and fair, when it comes to handling even terrorists suspects of heinous crimes as the attacks on 9/11, 2001. The other is that Mr. Holder's department will be seen as taking more seriously the work that previous prosecutors have managed to put off, during the seven years that most of the inmates have been in the facility in Cuba.

Both reasons would be superficial, because the Bush administration had allowed those who could not be tried to seek political asylum abroad, and it had set up tribunals to try others as enemy combatants, for the fact that they were soldiers caught in the battlefield. Evidence gathering was still continuing to prepare prima facie case against individuals who had committed atrocious acts of different sorts; and that the whole thing was a lengthy and cumbersome process.

The only excuse that the Obama administration could come up with would be to say that the crime had taken place in New York City; but so was Washington D.C. on that day, when the Pentagon was also attacked, and Pennsylvania, where one of the hi-jacked planes crashed, could be another venue that the trials could be held for those five people who had masterminded the same attacks.

It was therefore pure politics that instigated the Attorney General of the U.S. to decide to bring those people to New York City, and also that he considered the amount of publicity that the trials would gain.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has maintained that the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the City of New York would be making it (NYC) a target once again; and that the proper trial for the Sheikh and the other plotters was a military tribunal for their status as enemy combatants. So has the present governor of New York State, Gov. David Paterson, saying that the "State Will be Broke by Christmas.". He was actually talking about the State's budget, but that has caused the assumption of many New Yorkers to be that the decision of the trial was a major contributor to that situation occurring. It would make things worse all around, affecting particularly tourism to the State in general and to New York City, per se. Tourists would be afraid to come to the city from now on, as they have always placed it on "the danger list" as where something like 9/11 could happen again.

To make it safer for everybody would be to have those people tried by a military tribunal in a place like Guantanamo; and therefore, the decision must be overturned.

Over to you, Mayor Mike Bloomberg. (The present Mayor of New York City).

STUDENTS AND THE PRESIDENT.

Of all the activities on President Obama's trip to Asia, both political and "social" contacts, as some might look, his meeting in Shanghai with university students would rank among the top of such contacts.

It was fashioned on his usual townhall meeting settings in the United States, and the topic was about free Internet access and the availability of web sites that have been classified or restricted by strong and stringent government regulations. Such great fire-walls have been deliberately conveyed around the WWW (World Wide Web) and its sister system, "the Net", and have made them impregnable to penetrate from within and from the outside. Moreover, they were created to be used by all, with few, if any, boundaries, but not in places like China; as it was in America, where their use was common place, "even a caveman" could use them in any unfettered way.

Foremost was his own personal and political experiences in using the media (comprised of the WWW, the Internet, etc.) to achieve the impossible, and that was to enable him to win an election that made him the president of the United States.

It was an impressive meeting, with wide-eyed educated, future philosophers and leaders, listening to someone who almost fit into their mode, in terms of aspirations and stature, or at least, some of his audience would qualify for that description, and engaging in free and unbridled speech, and they were seemingly able to accommodate him; a scene so unfamiliar to them.

At that moment, there was no fear of expressing their true feelings, as some of them would, of the system that forced millions of their fellow citizens to be glued to mandatory rules purposely formulated to dominate their lives; and so, within the walls of the vast and wide auditorium, there was some fresh air to inhale freely; naturally, of course.

Party officials were not too far from the proceedings; however, their thoughts were wrenching in their minds as what was actually happening. Would the students, who probably were hand picked, be allergic to what was being passed to them, or would they come away, thinking to build on what someone who had succeeded in his quest to accomplish a feat on a grand scale influence their consciences? Could he be a role model for democracy, which we all knew was a far cry from their intellectual mental state? Could they aspire to having their own mind-set become
independent from what they have been indoctrinated to believe for all, and not just most, of their lives?

The questions kept raining down on them; and they could count themselves really lucky, because it (meeting) was not a program designed to be broadcast to the general population. It was held at "the Museum of Science and Technology", closed and almost private; and its political reverberations were not to be far reaching, to disturb the Communist Party lords who lorded over their country.

It happened that some Chinese people and students have met and seen an American president before, as presidents Clinton and Bush had had a brush with them, under similar circumstances and on different occasions, respectively; yet, theirs was in the present, and the other such encounters were already part of Chinese, if not world, history.

Well done, students of China, for sampling a bit of democracy.

AMERICA'S IMAGE & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Attorney General Eric Holder has done it again. Shocking news after shocking news; when will it all end? Firstly, it was the trial of CIA operatives for breaking interrogative rules, in their duty in dealing with terrorist detainees; and secondly, on Friday 13th, 2009, it was the extraordinary announcement of the trial of the "alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other so-called high-value detainees accused of plotting the attacks" in a federal court in New York City.

He has also made it a point to grab the news headlines, whenever President Obama was off on doing something else; like going on vacation on Martha's Vineyard island in Massachusetts, or making a visit to Asia, which was not even over yet. It was also so obvious that he would deliberately make those announcements to infuriate a section of the public and, at the same time, to please his liberal friends, who had the assumption that he was the one to clean up America's image abroad after the "damage" caused by the Bush administration to tarnish that image.

He perfectly knew that the news of the trials in New York, would be met with people's input of strong opposition from all quarters; it would be looked on as a purely publicity stunt by his department, and that the political aspect of it would be felt nationwide, spawning an unnecessary debate at a time, when politicians and simple folk alike were busy determining to sort out and to understand one of the most important and complicated issues in recent years, a health care legislation, that would affect almost everybody's life in the country. It has already consumed most of their time, and depleted most of their energies; and most (people) were just endeavoring to recover from its unsavory effects.

He was also aware of his European friends, whom he has always sought to impress, to be paying attention to his surely and carefully planned strides of making himself famous, in tackling "the image problem" that America has in their own minds.

However, it was true that America's image should be safeguarded and protected; and that could be done in several ways; yet, putting the people who were caught as "soldiers" in the battlefield, and having a civil court to deal with them was not one of those ways. They were war criminals and therefore they should be tried in military courts under different sets of rules. In other words, if they could be court-martialled (or court marshalled), then there should be no need to showcase them in any civilian jurisdiction that would give them privileges; particularly, the constitutional rights; that they were not entitled to and therefore should not ever have.

The whole idea was a bad one; and it would throw New York City back into the turmoil that it was in after the two World Trade Center towers came tumbling down. Besides, it would cause families, policemen and women, firefighters, students, school children, etc., etc., to recall the nightmares that they went through during those horrible times. It would remind them of the aggravation, the tantrum they felt; and of the despicable feeling of re-living the days that completely shattered their lives. All that would be undeservedly brutal on them.

Should I go on?

Well, the Attorney General, Mr. Eric Holder, has done it again; and on this occasion he was allowing terrorists to trample New York City underfoot; he was bringing an unwanted circus into town; but somebody should, please, stop him, or he would tarnish America's image even more.

Over to you, Mayor Bloomberg.

OBAMA'S TRIP TO ASIA.

President Obama's visit to Asia has to be more than just being a friendly one to renew relations with China and tighten those with Japan and South Korea; with North Korea, Iran and Afghanistan being the most problematic issues conspicuously silhouetting in the background against a glazed oriental sky.

What to do with Kim Jong-il's determination to push his country into establishing itself as a nuclear power in that precarious part of the world; Iran aiming at playing "hide and seek", also, about nuclear weapons; and not to mention Afghanistan and Pakistan becoming unstable in all aspects, politically, socially and economically.

The last two are the new tinder boxes that are ready to explode, if they have not already done so, as reports of casualties of American and allied forces tend to increase; as well as the daily bombings that are taking several lives at a go, becoming more routine. Some of his military advisers are urging him to handle the situations there with much caution, while others are demanding that additional man-power will be needed to bring the Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgency to a point where it can become subdued, if not to get those radical Islamist terrorists organizations to completely surrender.

If there are other issues to deal with on this trip, the debt due China must grudgingly be confronted, as most economist assert that it is one of the forces driving the economies of the world, including that of the United States. The power of the dollar is diminished and continues to diminish, and thus causing high unemployment at home, and also increasing prices of American manufactured and export products, making them less competitive, in terms of their high purchase costs, with similar foreign products, like cars and computer technologies, on world markets.

In other words, it is not just public relations that must be what the president is liable to concern himself with, but also other serious economic and political issues that are fraught with complications, must be tackled vehemently, so that when he returns, his visit will be considered worthwhile.

He was elected on the premise of change; however, there was nothing he could do to dramatically alter U.S. foreign policy as a whole, except to reaffirm its commitment to world peace, and the philosophy to maintain a strong and viable economy that would be able to extend a helping hand to struggling and poor nations around the world. He could achieve much, on the financial fronts, by starting renegotiating agreements that were making America's currency to dwindle, and to deny any compromises that would drive his country into owing more to other countries, such as China and Japan.

He has a chance of starting the process that would bring about change to most world economies, including that of his own, of course.

THE MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM.

This blog has called on President Obama to set aside all of his options and deal with the question of additional troops first, as requested by a man that he himself appointed to spearhead the war in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. After that would come the training phase for a strong Afghan military, based on the progress that would result from the beating back and defeating the Taliban onslaught, which was encouraging the insurgency.

The main strategy of the Taliban was to maintain strongholds in several parts of the country, and be able to force the United States advancements into retreat, giving the false notion that the counterinsurgency plan or any part of it was not working. It was a very simple strategy, but it would surely give the impression that they were winning. They have nothing else to consider, but to follow that basic plan; whilst the allied troops were confronted with problems of short handedness of soldiers and equipment, and attempting to clean up the corruption in the Afghan governance all at the same time.

Besides, they, the Taliban and their destructive ally, Al Qaeda, knew that the support for the war at home was fading, particularly when the allied troops suffered more casualties each month. The solution of that would be to get the situation reversed, by demoralizing the militants, using civilian areas that have been captured by the allied forces to be operable in social and economic ways. They would then be forced to "hole" themselves by taking up residency in the mountains, and their leaders would have a great deal of difficulty in communicating any plots hatched to confuse both their own people and the U.S. and allied forces.

At the same time, the main cities would have large civilian populations that would be under the protection of the allied forces, and be able to have some normalcy to flourish economically, with progress in business and functioning institutions, such as banking and trading organizations, being visible.

It would be these areas that the Afghan soldiers could be initially trained to replace U.S. and allied forces; and from that point on, further training could be given them to expand and be able to protect the countryside as well.

The Situation Room in the White House might have a whole lot of solutions; however, they could not all be workable to suit the war in Afghanistan; and besides that, America and its allies have resolved to be in that country, in the long haul, for their own security, and therefore, the coming back of troops must not be the first thing on their minds. They should be able to plan far into the future for the insurgency to be completely subdued before deciding on any troop withdrawals. With all due respect, the main preoccupation of the armed forces was to fight a war; and that was to rattle down the enemy into accepting defeat. That should be the only underlying factor for any decisions made, and not from any contentious arguments.

All Americans want the men and women in uniform of the U.S. armed forces to come home to their families and friends; but they must be allowed to complete their assignment, and to achieve the victory, upon which world peace and the co-existence of all humanity hinges.

NIDAL MALIK HASAN, MASS MURDERER.

The Fort Hood attacks by Nidal Malik Hasan, killing and wounding several United States soldiers, were complete murders. It was something that he had planned and executed, while many governmental agencies and military organizations looked on, and did not do what they needed to do to stop it; and that was to get him out of the U.S. armed forces. He did not have a place there at the Texas Army post in Fort Hood or anywhere else.

He was being investigated by a Washington based joint terrorism task force overseen by the FBI, when he was contacting a radical imam overseas; and that meant that the authorities were aware of his presence. They knew about all the negative signs surrounding him, and that he could be a danger. The case was turned over to the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. Those communications by Hasan to his connection outside the country were gathered by investigators from December 2008 through the early part of this year.

With all those investigative procedures swirling around him, those agencies had already discovered that he was "a square peg not fitting into a round hole"; and therefore, why was he allowed to remain in the Army? He was a typical home grown terrorist, and he was able to place himself where he could spy on soldiers coming from Iraq and Afghanistan, and gaining all kinds of information from them, by pretending to work with them in his position as an Army psychiatrist. If that was not his intention (to spy on soldiers), he could have resigned.

The murders were a tragedy, for a trusted individual who was a "known" sympathizer of Islamic radicalism to be permitted and operate, by hiding in the army, and be able to inflict so much damage, almost equivalent to the one suffered by the nation on 9/11, 2001.

There must be the speculation that there were others like him, as there were many Muslim members in the U.S. military armed forces; and although nobody could say that they would follow in the footsteps of Hasan, there should be a look out for them before anything as the one at Fort Hood happened again.

All the soldiers that were mercilessly killed, did not die in vain, as President Obama was at Fort Hood to honor them; and a Senate inquiry into the case was underway to find out how Hasan, a calculated murderer, got his chance to commit what could be described as a mass murder; a national tragedy. Our condolences should go to all their families.

OBAMA AND SUFFICIENT TROOPS.

This blog has said that President Obama has a great deal to consider before he made his decision to send more troops to the Afghan war; but that should be an understatement, considering the fact that, as president, he had the responsibility to ponder the very best of advise before he took action on any issue.

There were a thousand and one sources from which different suggestions would come, and fifty percent of that would be for a particular issue and fifty percent would be against it; and it would be natural to sift through them all to come up with the right solutions of which only one, and not several, could be picked to meet with the problem at hand.

That has to bring the president to a point where he would sum up his feelings and combined them with his thoughts, when all the facts have been scrutinized, for him to arrive at the proper conclusion. That point, in regard to the war in Afghanistan, was reached, when news media reports came out with the idea of 30,000 troops to be the number that he was planning to send out.

If those reports were factual, then what would be the difference between the target of the president and that of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's of, at least, 40,000 men and women to be given him at the war front?

As the saying goes, "it take two to tango"; the president is the the general's Commander-in-Chief, and he (the general) happens to have a plan that will bring success in facing off to the Taliban and Al Qaeda onslaught of the war. All that remains is to have that plan in place with the right compatible size or consistency to implement it.

After all, the question of additional troops is no more a problem to mull over, as all the advise that has been forthcoming agrees on more deployment to the war front. So, to haggle over its size will be irrelevant. The general knows what will be sufficient to adequately deal with the situation; and some military experts put the number to be even higher for the counterinsurgency. His choice, therefore, which happens to be the least number for the work on the ground to be properly handled, must be met. Half measures will not be sufficient in this instance.

It is not that this blog wants our men and women in the United States military to be put in harm's way, unnecessarily; it wants them to win. All they need is the help to do so.

CHANGE; HEALTH CARE REFORM & THE VOTE.

The word "CHANGE", which politicians have used to alter, replenish, reverse, refurbish and transform policies, institutions and ideologies, came into use on Saturday, when the House of Representatives passed its health care reform bill. The House voted for change of a health care system that has been broken for years, and although, the bill passed by a narrow margin of 220 to 215, the occasion made for many to breathe a sigh of relief from the discordant debate that had preceded it.


President Obama praised its passage in the House and called it "historic"; adding that it marked a "courageous vote" for many representatives who risked their own political lives to vote for it. He also predicted that the United States Senate would perform its duty to pass its version of the bill; the one being proposed now by Majority Leader Harry Reid in that Chamber; and said, "And I'm absolutely confident that they will."; meaning that there would be a chance for the House bill to be reconciled with a Senate version in the future.

That would allow a final bill to pass in both chambers for him to sign into law, bringing to an end an episode of wrangling disputes and arguments from all sides about health care overhaul in the country. It was something that everybody wanted, but the approach to it has been uncertain and controversial at times.

"Change", which has become a different thing for many, because its interpretation depended on whom you talked to, was the driving force behind all the arguments that were apparent in the "reform" debate. Some wanted governmental oversight to make the system more efficient, and also more pervasive to cover millions of Americans who were uninsured; and some would rather have it (system) tweaked here and there without any interference from the outside to maintain the health care insurance industry's free enterprise outlook. So, which one was better?

However, many would agree that Saturday's vote in the House was not the perfect thing that they had anticipated; yet, it was a fervent attempt to bring into fruition of what would help individuals and families to realize their latent dreams; to have health care insurance coverage for the first time in their lives.

Though, factions of it was unacceptable (as tax payer money for abortion and the eligibility of illegal aliens for public subsidies); and also, its cost would be astronomically high, considering the fact that health care services would be extended to many more people, it would bring progress to alter a situation that has been festering for many years, in terms of strong opposition to it, in a civilized nation, as America should be, and that was unfair to millions of people..

They postulate that America must be a civilization in which all of its citizens are treated and cared for equally; and there must be no discrimination of any kind, of how they may be addressed, when it comes to political, social and even economic matters; that, of course, includes health care insurance coverage.

Their only hope is for the Senate to see through all the cobweb of imprudent politics; the obstinate pride of capitalism against government involvement in free enterprise, even for reasons to correct an unfair circumstance, and for it (the Senate) to come up with a similar bill that will take the burden of uncertainty off the shoulders of many citizens.

It will require the CHANGING of hearts and minds of many Senators to do so; and not only that, but it will be "their finest hour", as the president has said, and also in the best interest of all Americans.

AMERICANS' PEACE OF MIND.

Americans live in a confused state these days; with health care reform, troop addition to/for/in Afghanistan, Iran's refusal to export enriched uranium and its intentions to manufacture nuclear warheads and/or bombs; and now, Islamic radicalism showing its ugly head in their midst at Fort Hood in Texas.

All these call for one thing; a national day of prayer or meditation; and it must take place in religious houses, in homes and in work places, by observing a few minutes of silence, for an atonement of some kind to descend on the whole nation, and for peace to abide in the minds of each individual person, to be able to handle these pressing issues that they, together, are faced with.

A day for that must be chosen by religious and community leaders, and even governments, Federal, State and Local, must get involved, as this is bound to have both civil and spiritual sides to it or a multiple approach to consider its implementation.

Ordinary people cannot help themselves, but allow these problems to weigh on them, notwithstanding their own personal drawbacks and difficulties, in their financial situations and social lives, for example; and they are clamoring for a relief of some sorts to come to their aid.

Politicians, doctors, and professionals of all kinds are all feeling the pinch just as well; and therefore, something needs to be done.

As a matter of fact, it seems like the whole world is feeling the same way, and nobody is sure of what is going to happen in the nearest possible future. Unrests are in progress almost everywhere; and world peace is at stake, no matter how anyone looks at it.

All groups, religious, political and social, therefore have the responsibility to bring this about; and some will say that it may not achieve anything of much significance, it will take a bit off the "heavy load" that all of us are carrying at the present moment. Americans need their peace of mind.

As for Islam or the Islamic religion, Salman Rushdie "called for a reform movement in Islam including a reinterpretation of the Quran to take it away from the "literalists"."; Article, Qur'am - Bible, Retrieved 11/07/09, 2009. Website: http://quranbible.wordpress.com/2006/10/14/salman-rushdie-islam-and-violence/

He was referring to it (Quran) as a storybook, and that some (people) have embraced its contents to be facts, which they were not. As such violence struck at its foundation, and its believers were a menace to world peace, if they followed what it said, verbatim. What happened at Fort Hood, Texas, by an Islamist fanatic, Nidal Malik Hasan, is unforgiving. It puts the peace of mind of everybody in jeopardy. A word to the wise is enough.

Our prayers, however, go to Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who stopped the worse from happening, by shooting Hasan to end the bloodshed. She, herself, was wounded; and she may not survive, according to reports.

CONGRESS AND THE SWORD OF DAMOCLES.

Health Care reform still hangs over Congress like the sword of Damocles, as the House of Representatives Democrats struggle to come up with the votes for their plan which will reflect “Obama’s goals of extending health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and putting tough new restrictions on insurance companies.”

In the Senate chamber, Majority Leader Harry Reid has been encountering a stiff opposition from Republican members, urging him to postpone a vote on the Senate proposals for a plan that would inculcate into the minds of his colleagues that the idea of Public Option was an absolute necessity for a real reform of a balanced health care insurance overhaul to be achieved.
Otherwise, there would be no change whatsoever in the health care system; the situation would remain the same, when insurance companies could impose their will on it (system), and to continue to maintain their stranglehold on the health care industry.

It is true that the vote on the 10-year, $1.2 trillion legislation will be critical, as a number of members on the Democratic side are reluctant to join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in bringing the vote count to a number that will win them the majority on the House floor. It has even been planned for President Obama to make a personal appeal to the Democratic rank and file on a special visit to Capitol Hill today, Friday (11/06/09), but it has to be put off, due to the Fort Hood crisis in Texas.

The vote is crucial, and action on the plan has been delayed, waiting for the Congressional Budget Office “to weigh in on the bill”; and although its final costs over 10 years are in the trillions, considering its dollar amount, it will provide the maximum amount of coverage up to 96% of the insured, as opposed to the “new” Republican plan that favors the insurance companies, by only providing the maximum coverage of 83% of the population.

In that plan, several millions of people will be left out, and their only recourse will be flooding the Emergency Rooms in hospitals around the country. They will be cared for, either way, so why not include them in the “new” plan now?

That question is so baffling, it boggles the mind just as much; but it also goes to show where some legislators stand in times of crisis like this one.

Trashing out the stumbling blocks, which are the abortion and the illegal alien questions, can be handled to exclude them from the bill by the use of language that will satisfy some “Blue dog” lawmakers and buffer the criticism of the opposition. Otherwise, it is high time for the bill to “fly”. It has attracted the support of the AARP and the American Medical Association, and all it requires is a few more votes that will translate it into a full-fledged legislation that can be signed into law by the president.

Remove the political sword of Damocles and allow Congress to breathe freely, to be able to bring this chapter of uncertainty in the country to a close; with the giving of votes for a resounding victory of the Democratic health care plan; at least on the House of Representatives side

The whole nation awaits its outcome on this cool, calm Friday morning; despite the Fort Hood violent incident.

P.S. To whom it may concern.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY/ THE YANKEES.

Does not the Republican Health Care plan come in far too late, after the nation has gone through such turmoil and uncertainty all summer long to endeavor to select a set of reforms that will overhaul the atrocious and somewhat condemned health care system?

Where actually have they been; to permit family against family and friends to become foes to occur at the erstwhile Townhall meetings and Tea Party gatherings?

The Democratic Party has produced several versions of plans that included Public Option, a feature that would usher in the uninsured and the people who might have pre-existing conditions. The Party has maintained that there should be no "uninsurables"; and that, at least, 96% of coverage of the population should be aimed at.

That idea has been rejected by many members of Congress on the Republican side, saying that it would be a government health care arm that would intrude into what private insurance groups were already doing. They would not want a government incursion into something that would allow outside supervision or intervention; and to attempt to curb the capitalist stronghold that the Insurance companies have had on the health care industry would not be tolorated. "No government run Insurance", they had chanted.

In other words, the status quo must remain. If so, then, have they not been speaking the same language that the Insurance corporations were, and are still using, as their advertisements show, to forestall any type of overhaul in the health care insurance industry?.

Their position is so ambiguous, it demands the question, "what have you been saying to the people you are supposed to represent all along; have you been telling them lies?" They should also ask themselves if they are for a health care reform or not, knowing fully well that the health care system is broken and needs to be fixed?
　
"The Congressional Budget Office says the GOP plan would cover 83 percent of eligible Americans, compared to the 96 percent the Dem plan would cover.", has appeared under a sub-headline in the media, and it definitely reminded people that the Republicans were not serious about any kind of change, or one that would be deemed as a truly universal coverage to have all citizens of the United States completely insured.

Their "new" health care plan, therefore, should only be regarded as a prototype of what the big Insurance corporations have been, and were still, advocating, and it must be thrown back at them.

YANKEES.
Hello guys; it has been a long time, since you won something for your favorite city, New York. The winning of the 2009 World Series title and the 27th baseball's highest trophy, have together been a moment that has elated the hearts, not just those of your fans, but those of the citizenry as well.

It was hard work, defeating one of the best clubs in the history of the game, the Philadephia Phillies. Congratulations to the whole Yankee organization.

P.S. Hard luck, Philadelphia; you have to wait till next year.

GOOD SHOW; MAINE VOTERS.

"The die is cast"; and the die will be cast everywhere from now on. This blog has said that to say what a great majority of Americans have always held as sacred, the institution of marriage; and of all the electioneering results, although the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial winnings by the Republican candidates have been outstanding, the most triumphant winning was the one in Maine where voters rejected a homosexual marriage law enacted by a legislature.

Many of the outcomes have been literally based on local issues, on corruption, high taxes and unemployment, as in the case of New Jersey, where millionaire governor Jon Corzine lost to a former anti-corruption state attorney Chris Christie, who had fought a grueling fight of one of the most negative prone political campaigns ever witnessed on both sides, as far as the Republican and the Democratic parties were concerned. His weight had even become part of the political profile of the important questions that voters were considering.

The two defeats, the one in Virginia and the other in New Jersey, where the Democratic Party lost, have been classified as referendums on the Obama government, as he, the president vigorously campaigned for his party's candidates; but both of them ended up losing.

Those runs were both for governorships and that dealt a crushing blow to the Democrats in general, and also forecasting an unwelcome outlook for the president to see many of his proposals, particularly on Health Care reform, to pass through Congress, as he envisaged.

In New Jersey, Christie won by 48% to 44% for Corzine; and in Virginia the margin was even greater, with the Republican Robert McDonnell gaining a whopping 58% of the votes against 41% by his opponent R. Creigh Deeds. The only slight consolation for Obama's party was the seat in New York State, where, due to certain misgivings within the Republican party, caused a democrat to be declared the winner.

The Congressional District seat there was vacant for the Republicans to grab, but the official candidate Dierdre Scozzafava dropped out for lack of support from party stalwarts, like former Governor Sarah Palin and others, who backed a third-party candidate, Conservative Doug Hoffman.

All in all, the Maine defeat for homosexual "marriage" takes the cake, as being the 31st loss for that group in every single state where the issue has been put to a popular vote. It has been given that they (homosexuals) can do whatever they want with their lives, and also that several options have been made available to them, such as "domestic partnership" and "civil union". They can take them or leave them; it is up to them.

Marriage will have no meaning, if a section of society concogted some foolish idea that same sexes can get married to each other, and that will not have a bad effect on life as we all know it, that section has another thing coming. Homosexuals and their "loving" their members, in itself, is no big deal; but they can only do so within their own privacy, just as heterosexuals do. They can also get involved in the options open to them.

Please, do not attempt to destroy marriage between one man and one woman. It is sacred and it is God given. (It is also Nature approved). The die is cast, once again. Good show, Maine voters. BRAVO!!!!

MANY SUGGESTIONS FOR OBAMA.

AFGHANISTAN.
Of all the suggestions of the United States reverting to any other forms of strategies in fighting the Taliban and its allied guest Al Qaeda, the Senator John Kerry's advise to get tribal leaders' cooperation and the support of the Afghans, instead of boosting up troop levels, and the recent resignation of Matthew Hoh, a senior civilian official in Afghanistan, over U.S. policy to be altered, among others; none has any feature that has been amiss in the overall strategies that have been applied since the Bush administration, in regard to the war that started in that country, soon after the 9/11 attacks on Washington, D.C., and New York City.

Those features, as the outsourcing of social plans to involve tribal leaders and their people; and working to gain their support by encouraging them to have a legitimate government and a strong modern military that would be operational under Afghan officers and servicemen, have always been part of U.S. policies there.

Therefore there is nothing new in the suggestions that many of these people are now putting out for the Obama government to utilize.

The suggestions had mentioned the risk of the deployment of troops, and the expense to be incurred by the U.S., as the former Marine (Hoh) had said; that, "It will take decades and billions of dollars to achieve success in Afghanistan." and the Senator's statement that, "McChrystal's plan is too ambitious."; however, those (suggestions) could not be stressed more convincingly enough by previous State Department and other government officials that have visited or stationed in that part of the world before; as well as from the reports of many military generals that have been engaged in the war there.

Such programs, regarding the building of political, social and governmental institutions, have been ongoing for all those years that the previous administration was engaged in all kinds of activities there; or since the war to curb the Taliban influence to create an Islamic regime and impose Sharia Law on the population; as well as the search for Usama Bin Ladin, the individual, who had planned and funded the 9/11 attacks. All that have been inclusive in U.S. policies for Afghanistan.

In other words, since the war started, America has pursued a unique aim, geared to contain the country, politically and otherwise (economically and socially), and to obtain the security for that region by disallowing a Taliban takeover.

It (America) has also had its own national security to consider; and that if there was a stable government in Afghanistan, the better it would be for peace there, and for that of its neighbors, like Pakistan and India, who were America's allies.

Therefore, nothing new could be derived from those suggestions, mentioned elsewhere by Sen. Kerry and Mr. Hoh; and there should be nothing said to undermine U.S. future plans, of which Gen. Stanley McChrystal's mission was part, for success to be achieved in Afghanistan. Unless the idea was to suggest a complete pullout of all U.S and allied troops; and even that would not solve any problems.

IRAN.
The intransigence of Iran is so thick, one can cut it with a knife; as its attitude leaves much to be desired, now that the rogue regime is reneging on its promise to send a majority of its enriched uranium stockpile out of that country to be transformed into fuel for its nuclear reactors.
　
It was buying ready-made fuel, meaning that the exporting of almost 80% of its enriched uranium to Russia would not come about. "This came as IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday that Iran must respond to IAEA queries about its nuclear program, and be "forthcoming" in its response to an IAEA fuel proposal.", media news reports were saying.

President Obama must turn his attention to that issue as well, and to seriously remind Iran of the consequences of its refusal to do what it (Iran) has agreed upon, during the recent meetings in Vienna, Prague. Its action or inaction would affect the peace in that region and that of the world.

Take heed, Iran.

A DECISION BY THE PRESIDENT.

The situation in Kabul is very unsettling and rather confusing under the present political circumstances, as the main opponent to the Karzai government has decided not to participate in the runoff presidential election in Afghanistan.

The country's election commission has canceled Saturday's presidential runoff election and proclaimed "President Hamid Karzai the victor of the war ravaged nation's tumultuous ballot.", and "Independent Election Commission chairman Azizullah Lodin announced Karzai as the victor during a news conference in Kabul on Monday.", according to media news reports.

That must have caused the White House to assess its approach to Karzai' s position, as he has now been declared "victor", and for a readjustment of its (WH) policies that have been suspended due to the runoff election, toward his government. Now that Abdullah Abdullah has withdrawn, he Karzai has to be the only person to deal with.

Yet, other aspects of the situation in Afghanistan have to come under tougher consideration, particularly for the fact that the war against the Taliban insurgency continued; and that the United States top military commanding officer conducting the strategies, with respect to the war, has made a request for more troops into that country.

President Obama has had that request reviewed, first, by himself, and then with the National Security Council, and other senior advisers and experts; and it remained for him to decide on whether the general's demand should be granted.

There is no doubt that more troops are required to sustain the Afghan war effort; but much of the opinion expressed by the advisers and experts to the president seems to be at variance with what the general and his commanders on the ground are asking for, and that continues to create a stalemate of sorts.

Some were waiting for a result to come out of the runoff election, and some were concluding that lesser number of troops were needed; and that debate has been going on in the Situation Room in the White House and elsewhere.

However, the runoff election has been canceled, and a new counterinsurgency plan against the Taliban and Al Qeada militants was still waiting to be implemented; the question still remained as to when a definite decision that would culminate into real action would be made by the president, so that the insurgents, who have already been emboldened by the length of time that was taking the U.S., judging from the number of casualties that were suffered in October, on meeting the general's demand.

Most Americans are not interfering with what their government is likely to do in confronting the enemy responsible for the 9/11 attacks; but they are committed to supporting their own troops, who are ready, willing and able to win the war in Afghanistan; and therefore they can only wait for a firm decision to be made by the Obama government; and the sooner the better.

OBAMA; VERSIONS OF ADVISE.

"Too many cooks spoil the broth"; caught "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue sea", and a few such sayings have appeared lately in the news media, including the Internet blogs, of course; yet, they must not be applicable to what the White House is experiencing at the present moment, with the comings and goings of important personalities, from both military and civil sectors of American society, because everything there seems to be normal and under control.

All that is to do with President Obama's decision to increase troop levels in the Afghan war theater; either to go with the advise of his National Security Council or to approve a new counterinsurgency strategy, as proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top military commanding officer in Afghanistan.
　
Public polls have been taken to measure the sentiment that dealt with how the president was moving to handle the situation, with several figures showing his approval rating dwindling; such as, "Nearly half of Americans surveyed, 47 percent, now say the war has not been worth fighting, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. And the question of sending more troops to Afghanistan brings the same stark divide: 47 percent of Americans favor a surge, while a sliver more – 49 percent -- say no.". Yet, the Afghan war is a necessity, for reasons like the 9/11 attacks on mainland America.

As polls are as useful for measuring what is popular and what is not, not all decisions can be based on them; and whatever good works the ABC and Washington Post poll and others intend to achieve, that will be to the anticipation of their readers and viewers.

Nevertheless, it was obvious that, the many consultations with high ranking military officers and civilian experts taking place at the White House, the only sure action that would come out to really have any bearing on the war would be choosing the only one advise that was more practical than all the others; and that should be what the president should be looking for.

He was not sending men and women into battle, just for the sake of doing so; but that they were to have the most salient plan that would ensure their own safety on the battlefield, and to be victorious, in the final analysis; with the most minimum of casualties, if there should be any.

All presidents vow to protect the United States; a sacred oath invoked in the Constitution; and therefore, it becomes incumbent on the current occupier of the White House to insist on what tangible material he may need to undertake that oath. However, most people will agree that the numerous forms of advise given the president in recent weeks, will all have to be weighed on their merits; from the advise in McChrystal's report through to the one given him by Senator John Kerry on his return from Afghanistan, and that of Vice President Joe Biden, respectively.

Needless to say that all that advise will come to naught, if the president fails to choose what will work for the soldiers who are actually facing the onslaught of the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants; and if something is not done to put them in the reverse, they are bound to gain advantage in controlling events, and certainly the outcome of the war.

The decision is a really tough one to make from all the versions of advise the president has received; but let us imagine that he will make a fruitful and a satisfactory one, to the expectation of a hopeful nation; with the most serious consideration for the men and women in uniform, who are fighting to protect the United States, in mind. They want to win; and given what they want, they will win.

CHANGE AND HEALTH CARE REFORM.

What does change demand? It demands, contribution, cooperation and sacrifice. Change is not an empty notion; it requires practicability, patience and bold decisions.

These are some of the connotations of change; and who are liable to know that more than the regular folk? It has to be politicians who are always invoking change. They do so to alter situations and conditions; to renew or refurbish institutions, and to clear up and resolve problems.

The reaction to it (change) always varies, which can involve acceptance, rejection and failure for lack of conviction. Sometimes it is met with mixed feelings, of anger on one hand and elation on the other; or abstention or complete objection to it. Change is not as cheap a commodity as we are led to believe in some instances, in terms of it being expensive and costly. It is like buying a new house; it must cost a lot of money, naturally. It can also be provocative, satisfactory or indifferent at times, but of course, never, never confusing.

All that does not define the word "change" itself. It is a group of qualifications or excesses that tend to bring out its true meaning; thus giving the inquisitor an ample opportunity to know what it (change) stands for. So that, when people fail to grasp or understand its purpose, one is bound to ask the question, why?

The health care reform or overhaul has captured the imagination of people from all walks of life; politicians, doctors, industrial manufacturers, union workers, retirees, housewives, the rich and the poor. Yet, its underlying factor, which is its purpose or its usefulness is creating problems for even the well educated; however, the simple fact is that, if it is to serve the needs of society, then its outcome must affect everyone. In some instances, it can be in the form of high taxes or skyrocketing costs or a new approach in dealing with, for example, Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers or insurance premiums and how to keep them from going through the roof or Insurance corporations to conform to new rules to effectively regulate them or the replacement of old and antiquated health insurance plans that have to be thrown out of the window; etc., etc.

The complexity of the health care system cannot be overemphasized, but its exercise is one that is directed toward helping the weak, the disabled and the sick in society, and so, it must be reformed for it to function as properly as it has to be. In other words, it (system) has to be able to perform well.

Children, pregnant women and frail, old people must be considered; big and small hospitals and health facilities have to have financing for development; to be able to carry out renovation, depending on the state they are in; and more.

A host of activities must take place in the system; all leading to how a community can remain healthy and disease free. To say that, a healthy community is a happy community will be an understatement. On a national basis, the scenario is also applicable.

That is what most lawmakers in Congress are aiming to do; however, some are just being hypocritical and remain on the side that has nothing realistic to offer, but sheer criticism. Public Option, we are told, will cripple the private sector of the health care industry, and that it will be hard for the remnant of it to compete with a government run insurance provider. Whether that is true or not is still a moot point; yet, change must come.

To the understanding of many people, taking part in it (PO) will not be mandatory; it will be open for states to hop in or out, if that is what they intend doing. Tax payer money for abortion, which is aberrant to some states, will require a clause of some kind to prevent it. Illegal aliens to have access to social services and even qualify for welfare payments must not be allowed to happen; and only the ironing out of such problems is what is left. Yet, some Congress men and women are being adamant in accepting that there is a need for change for the American health care recipient.

The proposals that have come out of the House of Representatives, as announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, carry hopeful signs of progress, that a final House bill is the works, which will eventually compare, side by side, with one that will come out of the Senate. It will then require a joint committee to find the pitfalls and obstacles in each one and level them out; at which point, a consensus will be reached for a final bill to pass in both Houses for President Obama to sign into law.

Through the democratic process, the nation will have a "Clean Bill of Health" care reform to cater to the need of all Americans; and that will be the change that we all want. Therefore, all must contribute, all must cooperate, all must sacrifice to a common cause; for without that, the chaos of the status quo will continue.
　

OBAMA: MORE TROOPS AND HEALTH CARE REFORM.

There are many things weighing on the minds of Americans more now than ever, but the most important of them are the war in Afghanistan and the Health Care reform or the general overhaul of it. Many are waiting anxiously to see how they will be handled by the Obama administration, to be able to assess its ability to function effectively under stress, as those two issues have become strenuous problems for the government. They amount to a pivotal, as well as a testing point.

In fact, the combined test is about whether the request for more troops to Afghanistan will be agreed to by the administration, and the concern for Public Option to be accepted as part of any health care plan that Congress will pass. Both have sparked lively debates around the country, and are preoccupying the time of most people who, under normal circumstances, will not show much interest in national affairs, because politics tend to be, in general, an anathema to them.

Yet, one of these issues is about the national security of the United States, from an insurgency that is causing a threat to democracy everywhere, with the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks in mind, to booth; and the other concerns the health care of the nation, comprised of individual people and their families. So, therefore, they (issues) demand critical thinking for the right decisions to be made by the government.

That is what is happening in Washington today; but it (Washington) is also caught up in the usual politics, so much so that, if the government is not careful, the wrong decisions will be made.

Most people think that the diluting of the demand of Gen. Stanley McChrystal for more troops to the Afghan war front, for one, and the pushing out of Public Option from any health care plan, for another, will both be a mistake.

As on one hand, the general knows how a war, which he and his soldiers are involved in must be fought, and the counterinsurgency plan that must be put forth to bring success to himself and his troops; while on the other hand, so much opposing advise is being given to President Obama to shunt the general's request.

On health care, no plan can be used to satisfy all factions to the debate; however, to rule Public Option out of any final plan will not achieve the objective of having a real reform in the health care system. Most people will be left to their own devices to find some form of "coverage". In other words, they will either be forced to swamp the Emergency Rooms in the already crowded hospitals across the country, or buy insurance at cut-throat prices, if they can get it. Others will not be able to afford any type of premium that will be imposed on them.

Both situations therefore need the solemn consideration on the part of President Obama to come to the decisions that will help the whole nation to pass the stressful test that its people and government are facing together at the present moment. The hope is that, he will do so by choosing the correct advise, in both cases. Americans must not be allowed to remain in a state of desperation; no, not for too long.

RUSH WHO AND WHO AND WHO AND WHO.

The idea that the White House is attacking personalities and FOX News is not true; it is the other way around; and as each day goes by, the opponents of any health care plan that will include "Public Option" attempt to crowd Americans with bad news about it. The bad news being cooked up by members of the Republican Party, the Chamber of Commerce and the Insurance companies, using a media outlet to inflict damage on any type of reform that will curtail the hold the insurance companies have on the health care industry.

First, it is reported that the profit margin of insurance companies happens to be less than that of other industries, making it 2.2% in 2008; yet, the report fails to mention the salaries of top officials in that industry in its (report's) tabulations, which go to drastically reduce profits.

Just this morning, it is a Sen. Tom Coburn, who has written a column on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan, and making sure that the confusion of the American public continues.
　
The senator has written, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's failed attempt last week to round up enough votes to pass a $247 billion plan to shield doctors from steep Medicare cuts shows the administration needs to get serious about the deficit -- and lay off its critics."

Just take a look at the mixture in that statement alone. It has the "Cost, Medicare cuts, Deficit, Critics" all jumbled into one; and it clearly shows that Sen. Tom Coburn's column is designed, not only to generate confusion into the minds of its readers, but also to inject distilled information into the debate on health care reform.

To many people, what the Obama admintration staff is saying is that, they know where the opposition is coming from (as mentioned elsewhere in this article), and that its (opposition's) campaign to sink "public option" is being trumpeted by FOX News. If so, then the administration has every right to point out these organizations and individuals who are behind the attempts to sabotage something that will go a long way to benefit a whole lot of people.

Most of us are "old codgers", and so, if Medicare is affected by Senator Reid's plan, pull that part and bring it into the open and straighten it out; if abortion is not wanted in the plan, do the same with it; and so on and so on. For a thorough debate to take place, and Congress men and women getting rid of their own prejudices, as for example, that competition will stifle the insurance industry, there will be no real health care reform; and certainly, not when the Chamber of Commerce and the insurance companies are pumping so much money into Washington (D.C.), by way of the lobbyists, to influence votes in Congress.

Whoever these people are, Rush who and who and who and who; get them all out of Obama's hair. FOX News, be a real news gathering organization and stop being a mouth piece of the Republican Party (....as you have been).

That is what the White House is saying.

P.S. This blog is not a mouth piece of, or for anybody, group or organization; particularly, not for the WH.

OBAMA'S TOUGH DECISION.

There is no doubt that President Obama is, as accused by former Vice President Dick Cheney, "Dithering"; and that the president himself cannot reach a decision on the increased troops in Afghanistan, until probably there is a clear winner from the presidential runoff election there. (...and "Dithering" is too strong a word; there is no need for it. Apologies to Mr. Cheney).

From one perspective, both men seem to be right, as the president has the obligation to make a decision that will be deemed as far reaching, in responding to Gen. McChrystal's request, and also in order not to offend his own political base at home; yet, time is a-going, and therefore, there is no way that he can hesitate any longer than it is necessary, to make one.

The situation will be confusing, even when you have the best political and military advise at your disposal, as the president has; but there is an ongoing war that must be fought, willy nilly, by the United States and its allies, composed of NATO members; and he (Obama) must now be between "the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea", so to speak.

Then comes a "fresh" statement by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerry, saying that the general's proposed demand to send at least 40000 additional U.S. combat troops to the Afghan war "reaches too far, too fast", among other things. His (Chairman's) report is based on his own observations from his most recent visit to the war zone; and that must also be taken into serious consideration.

Yet, that report, however pertinent, seems to look more into the future, that the "assurance that the Afghan forces are reliable enough to partner with U.S. troops, assistance from the country's local leaders, and the cooperation and the support of the Afghan people.", falls short of what must be done immediately to reverse the trend of the war; and although, it (statement) does not "throw a spanner in the works", it does not defuse the situation either; no, not very much at all.

The other perspective will be for the president to agree with the general to quickly send added troops to forestall the course of how the war is proceeding, which is the "immediate" assessment of the commanding general of U.S. forces "on the spot" in that country; and then find time to consider the effects of some social, political and economic engagement programs for the Afghan people that will galvanize support for the war; which will be in the "immediate future", counting on his luck for that to ever happen.

As far as when will the Afghan forces be "reliable enough to partner with U.S. troops" is concerned, the question is inconsequential. They are still being trained; and that the training is bound to take some ample length of time.

Nevertheless, it is the urgency of the matter that his opponents are talking about, that the Taliban and Al Qaeda will not wait to unleash their venomous arsenal on the U.S. and allied troops and rout them, instead of the other way around. Arsenal, like suicide bombings, road-side bombings, random attacks and ambushes; they do not take too long to prepare; and so, if he continues to "dither", particularly on the suggestions of the "Chairman", the enemy will have the advantage to control events on the ground.

Any way the president looks at the war in Afghanistan, he has to come up a decision; one that will be showing that he has confidence in the men and women of the military who are staking their lives out to protect and defend the United States; one that will not be a burden on them; one that will not keep them waiting; one that will give them the advantage instead. Their sacrifice is not one to haggle over or bargain with; their lives matter most to the country and to their families.

He must make a strong decision, however tough it may be; if not, his own prestige will be on the line. It will suffer the most, and not that of his critics.

SENATOR REID'S PLAN.

It looks like the Public Option portion of the future health care insurance plans for Americans will live to see the light of day once again; as Capitol Hill is agog with the news that Majority leader in the Senate, Sen. Harry Reid, is close to getting the 60 votes that will allow a final bill to materialize.

He has been "working the phones and, behind closed doors, trying to meld together five bills. And he is resurrecting the "public option" to compete with private insurance.", according to ABC News. Such piece of news would gladden many hearts, as they would be able to get insurance coverage plans, which would emanate from a real non-profit source, the government.

With a no profit government program involved, prices could be standardized, as the charges of corporate insurance companies would be forced to reflect those of public option plans, for sheer comparison, if nothing else; and although, people did not want a free health care plan, as that would seem like a handout, they knew that they could choose from a spate of plans, whether they were private or government sponsored, depending on their income and/or budget.

That would enable the overall cost of health care to fall, and it would also make health care affordable as it should be. Although, the word "Universal" has not been used by lawmakers, in connection with any of the health care reforms, the idea of what was being referred to as "the option-option" would emerge as the final bill, and it would have a choice clause inserted in it; permitting States to stay in Public Option plans or to have the one that suited them. Thus merging five health care reform bills into one to make that choice available to all, so that everybody would eventually be covered, either by private insurers or the government.

The competition is what most people are afraid of, calling it an incursion of "big and powerful" government into private enterprise, which does not fit the spirit of capitalists America. However, the present state of affairs do not also suit the poor, people with pre-existing conditions, and over 40 to 50 million others who have no insurance coverage of any kind, presently or in the past.

Senator Harry Reid's plan, if it prevails, will be somewhat universal; and it will be like a very heavy burden being lifted off the shoulders of a whole lot of people, making it possible for them to show up at their own doctors' offices, instead of hospital emergency rooms, where, in some cases, they will remain unattended for hours.

The scenario can be one in which both the patients and the doctors in the ERs are "tired", and yet, they are forced to meet each other. In those kinds of situations, reforms are needed in the United States health care system, and Public Option must be part of that system, however hard the anti-public option element in society will howl.

NO DISPUTE, MR. VICE PRSIDENT BIDEN.

"An innovative offense is the best defense". (TECHNICALLY SPEAKING). That is one of the headlines displayed by a news media outlet this morning; and it coincides with what Vice President Biden's plan for the fight in Afghanistan; to use drones and special forces to eliminate individual leaders of the militants, and that will discourage their followers and eventually disengage them from fighting.

That is what the vice president's war plan amounts to. It is in apposition to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's version of a full confrontational strategy, in the form of rooting out the Taliban terrorists, and holding an area with enough troops after that, to make civilian life possible; and the two are among the options that President Obama is looking at, to make a final decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan .

Well, the vice president's report is based on his trip to the war zone, and so, it will be far more picturesque than that of the general, who happens to be conducting the war itself; His observations are bound to be factual; and thoughtfully considering, the president will be aware of that. Yet, the experience has been that a president tends to listen to his vice president more likely than an outsider, as he thinks that the advise he gets from the person next to take his place is more feasible and he will somehow accept it without question, as a practical thing to do.

However, in this particular instance, it will be advisable for President Obama to take the general's idea more seriously than the pretty picture his vice president is presenting.

Getting rid of militant leaders does not stop a war; they are replaced instantly or almost immediately after their death, and their replacements continue from where their predecessors have left off. So, that piece of advise must be for another time, however plausible.

On another front, Vice President Biden's reaction to former Vice President Cheney's remarks on the Afghan war is one to be considered as very cogent to the argument that the Bush administration ignored the war in Afghanistan for eight years, and that the present administration has been handed a "mess", as some White House officials have been saying in recent past in the media.

He admits that a well prepared "review" has been handed to the Obama transition team; however, the mentioning of it by the former vice president "is irrelevant". That may be so, nevertheless, that puts the present government in a position of taking full responsibility for whatever happens in Afghanistan from now on; as the White House will have no more excuses to make in pushing back any mistakes, current or otherwise, on the previous government.

There is no reason here to berate Vice President Biden for his own remarks on what his predecessor has to say, as he (Biden) has been frank to vindicate the Bush administration of the controversy about additional troops that has been embedded in the review given to him and President Obama. He has allowed the truth to come out, and many Americans will commend him for that.

He has also proved that he is doing his work perfectly well, for bringing three European leaders to the understanding that the United States is committed to their defense. Those countries being Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania; and they have agreed to accept Obama's modified missile defense version, which replaces the Bush-era plan. There is no dispute at all about his performance on that score either.

Bravo, Mr. Vice President Biden.