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.

MR. CHENEY TO THE PRESIDENT.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney needs no defense from anyone; he can always do that himself, and extremely very well too. Yet, using the word "Dithering" for President Obama is completely uncalled for.

It is true that the sending of troops is necessary, and a decision on that has to be made as quickly as possible; however, the topic has also created a controversy for the government. Some of his (Obama's) advisers support the idea and another faction does not. It has become a matter of the president being in a quandary, and nobody really knows where he actually stands in regard to that controversy, although he is the decision maker, after all. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be given him; at least for the time being, while he considers doing what is right for the nation.

Everybody knows that he is considering doing something in response to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request. However, instead of the White House thinking about the right approach to the problem, it has to reach back and bring the Bush administration into the controversy, and that is too bad. It is becoming the "knack" of the present administration to turn back to old controversies, like this one; and people will soon grow weary of that.

What has gone before must not be used by the government each time that it wanted to impute blame on Former President Bush; as that would just stick only for a little while; and since the Democratic Party has taken over power now, its members were responsible for anything after the erstwhile 2008 presidential election that gave them the majority to rule. Not letting bygones be bygones would therefore draw any type of criticism, particularly from any member of the previous administration; and it might very well prove that such criticism would rather exacerbate the controversy instead of helping it.

More so by the jumping in of the Speaker of the House of Representatives into the fracas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi did have the right to defend the present administration, but she did so at a time when the controversy for sending troops to Afghanistan was still brewing within her own party.

Besides that, she was aware of the policies of the Bush government on both the Iraq and the Afghan wars being passed to the Obama team during the transition period. It was then that the Democrats could have objected to them; however, they did not. They accepted them willy-nilly. Therefore, there was no denying that "the ball was in their court", so to speak.

Now, the troops that are fighting the wars are in want; they need more men and women of the military to come to their aid; and are you going to deny them that request?

The previous government, of which Vice President Cheney was part, learned to handle the enemy very well, soon after the September 11 attacks, so that there were no more attacks on mainland America for seven years. That achievement should be a feather in the Bush administration's cap. Not many people spoke about that. Was not that incredible?

It was the kind of protection that Americans wanted and needed, and it should be emulated by the present government, or that protection would be in jeopardy.

"Please, Mr. President, send the troops", is what former Vice-President Dick Cheney is trying to say; and so, do the best you can and listen to him.

Americans have stayed united in the face of adversity, always.

IRAN AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Iran's agreement to send a majority of its low-enriched uranium to Russia for processing shows that the rogue nation is gradually coming to its senses, and slowly withdrawing from its ambition of nuclear bomb making, rather than using the technology only to generate energy for its growing population.

According to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, Iran is ready to accept a draft, which is the end product of negotiations by the United States, Russia and France that has been reached with the representatives of Iran in Vienna to be presented in all four countries for approval not later than Friday, 10/23/09.

Iran's chief delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh, has hailed the draft as being promising by saying that it is "on the right track," and "We have to thoroughly study this text and also (need) further elaboration in capitals," pointing the way for Iran to gain a remission from the International community and to finally be accepted back into its fold.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has emphasized that "Iran must take immediate measures to execute steps on low enriched uranium", thus moving it elsewhere, and in that instance, Russia has been the designated location, or the U.S. will not talk to "Iran merely for the sake of talking"; as Reuters, the news agency, reports. There seems, however, an indication that the draft, if approved, will pave the way for the two countries to have a one on one talks to reduce tensions.

It will also enable the rest of the world to breathe a sigh of relief from what might have been a volatile situation that will threaten the peace, which all nations need to exist coherently; and if that is what the proposed draft is leading to, then the Iranian leaders in Tehran must find it feasible to approve it as quickly as possible, so that preparations can move forward to implement its (draft's) contents. Such a venture will have so many technicalities being involved, with scientists and nuclear specialists, including all kinds of organizations trailing behind for verification purposes, while at the same time detailed diplomatic negotiations continue.

It is a breakthrough that must be regarded as a cogent part of settling the nuclear dispute of whether Iran has had, and continues to have the intention of developing nuclear weapons that will threaten the existence of Israel, and for that matter, be detrimental to world peace. Nevertheless, Iran President Ahmadinejad's insistence that the technology is geared only to produce energy for peaceful use must be encouraged by all factions to that dispute, with much alacrity that it (Ahmadinejad's prediction) will be so.

It will also set a good example for other nations to follow the path to peace; and its implications will be a fair outcome, as well as serve as a warning to, not just North Korea, for example; but other countries that may have the intentions of defying the United Nations Security Council resolution which has focused on the disarmament and non-proliferation of nucelar weapons, and which has been adopted and signed only a few weeks ago.

Hopefully, Iran will not look on the final result, if everything goes well and as planned, with the draft as being a forerunner to restore normal relations, to be a reprieve of some sort that is being offered by the U.S. and rest of the world for it (Iran) to abstain from what is its right to pursue nuclear power. It has to accept it (final result) as a prerequisite to allow it (Iran) an admission into the comity of nations once again.

Take heed, Iran.

OBAMA'S LIBERAL FRIENDS.

Looking through colored glasses has always been the style of many liberals; and it was mainly their vote that won the recent presidential election for the Democratic Party, and therefore they were interested on imposing their agendas on the Obama government, which was, by and large, a proponent of those agendas too. Therefore, the only way to pursue their objectives would be to have a place in the deliberation making enclave or "the loop", in order to influence policy.

The cultural attitude of American politics has been based on constitutional law amendments, whose foundations stemmed from the collective philosophical gems of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all citizens; and nobody would ever want to deviate from that sacred rite.

However, it has also been the experience of many aspiring politicians that, being on the outside of government was one thing, just as being on the inside was another; or that might have just dawned on them.

Being on the outside of government was a position from where criticisms, constructive or not, could be projected to expect an administration to conform, not only to its own policies, but also to be open to others, even though they (policies) might be objectionable to their way of thinking; or the new policies being introduced from the outside, would involve unfavorable radical ideologies. The alternate scenario was that, when the opposite faction, by virtue of the ballot box, gained power, that would completely go to change the political landscape; but the complexion of its (faction's) philosophies would not alter. When that should happen, there were internal conflicts that would go on within the ranks of that faction.

In other words, for a strongly radical administration to assume the responsibility of government, and then discovering the realities of policy making, it would be at loggerheads with its own ideologies; and finding that it was hardly practical to implement all its agendas, it became stuck in the middle of nowhere; and that was when criticisms became compulsory anathemas.

We can picture America in that situation, now that President Obama is occupying the White House; and that the colored glasses have dropped, and he and his people are seeing things more realistically.

Realities always appear on the political scene as mirages to the outsider, and he or she can shower criticisms or even poke jokes at what others are doing to find sustainable ways to make things right; yet, when they (realities) become apparent to him or her, the outsider, when he or she becomes the insider, he or she is faced with a sandstorm, and he or she is now blinded in such a way that reaching simple decisions may not at all be simple after all. Yet, whether they are or not, decisions have to be made.

The Obama government is fighting two wars, and therefore the president cannot sit on the fence looking in; no, not anymore. The names of the enemy must not be allowed to grow stronger, as that will only impede his own objective of a peaceful world. They are the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and he must decide on what to do with them now.

Let Gen. Stanley McChrystal have his troops; notwithstanding the runoff presidential election between Karzai and Abdullah in Afghanistan. Some of his liberal friends may object to such a decision; however, that is the way he has to go.
　

HAMID KARZAI AND ABDULLAH....

A legitimate government is desirable in Afghanistan to pave the way for a definite decision to be made by the Obama government to send more troops to the war front there; and so, it is somewhat good news for Hamid Karzai to agree to either a runoff election or a unity government, with Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah engaging in some kind of power sharing arrangement, politically.

These are the only two ideas applicable to the situation in their country. However, the rumor is still tentative in regard to Karzai's agreement.

Nevertheless, both options are risky, as the fraud in the previous election may return in the runoff election, or a unity government will not be strong enough to support United States military plan of "holding and building"; a strategy that will bring about putting together of all the factions in Afghanistan to form a viable entity that can be construed as one single nationality. That is what the ultimate aim is or must be; of a nation that will be acceptable to all sides, under the legitimacy of a true Afghan government.

It will be a hard pill for Karzai to swallow; to share responsibility with his opponent. However, that will be one of the two sensible actions that can be taken, and that will cause a way to open for any troops to be dispatched to that war torn country by the U.S. government.

At the moment, President Obama can only wait, but he cannot hesitate in his decision to get the military in preparedness; to be ready for their mission in Afghanistan is a must. Karzai can only be a stumbling block and a menace, if he continues to resist any of the two suggestions, as he himself will be making it difficult for the U.S. government to follow up on the demands of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is requiring more combat troops to face the onslaught of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces.

It is clear that it will be impossible for an incorruptible government to exist in Afghanistan, as history has shown, mainly due to the drug trafficking there. It has been a country that has never known anything else, but for its people to grow opium poppies, which culminate into both legal as well as illegal industries; producing revenue for government and citizenry alike.

It will therefore remain problematic; yet, its position is vital to U.S. national security interest, almost as Pakistan is. To allow it to fall in the hands of Islamist extremists will be a big blow to America; and not forgetting its allies, as well; and a complete failure for Obama's presidency.

Karzai and Abdullah must join forces; or for one of them to come out as a clear winner of a runoff election to enable the U.S. president to send more troops, of American men and women, to their country, to fight and eliminate the insurgency there.

OBAMA; IS HE TOUGH?

The question this morning in the headlines, on TV and in newspapers, is tipped with the timidity on the part of the president, probing if he is "tough enough" for the decisions he needs to make in order to put his mark on present day American politics.

President Obama has been holding on to the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, which must be, at least, 40 thousand men and women, being put in harms way; he is backing down on Public Option in the health care proposals, which he says is essential; and TV programs like Saturday Night Live, and late shows have been poking fun at his inaction for certain promises he has made during the recent political campaign, to which they say he must be held accountable, even at this early stage of his administration.

According to top advisers, he has to think through many of these issues, such as he is doing with health care reforms, to be able to reach a compromise, with so many versions from all sides, for a bill to pass in both chambers of Congress.

On the troop issue, there is the probability that he will be waiting for a run-off election in that country before he takes the appropriate action, because a trusted and strong government is required there; and on and on it goes.

Notwithstanding these issues, he has been holding his own to look determined and, yes, tough for the past ten months.

Although, the word "timid" has not appeared in any of these editions, whether on TV, or in a journal or in any newspaper; but the question goes a-begging to suggest, however slightly, that he is afraid to make hard decisions, when he knows perfectly well that the presidency is only there for hard decision making.

No timid person can assume the presidency; not even LBJ or Ford, who have not faced any election, respectively, to get the position. He Obama is no LBJ or Ford, for the obvious reason that he has fought a gruesome election for his post; he cannot be anything else but tough.

However, the SNL skit to keep the promises he has made on a campaign trail to homosexuals, among other things, and have not been kept as yet, is ridiculous, for there is no way that he can keep all promises to all people.

When it comes to his toughness, it can only be proved as time goes on. Passing judgment of any kind therefore will not stick; not at this particular juncture when his administration is still so young. Americans are too smart to be subjected to a game of lampooning somebody into a caricature which he is not.

It is true that decisions, like the one on troops for Afghanistan, must be made to assuage the heavy burden on the soldiers who are there now; they must not be thinly spread for the kind of war they are fighting. The other is insisting on a Public Option proposition to be included in the final plan; that will truly make any health care bill that he will sign into law, really universal. A plan to cover every Tom, Dick and Harry; as well as every Jane, Joan and Mary, is what all Americans want.

President Obama must have the inclination to make the right decisions; and although he is reaching out to all sections of the public, as his style has so far demonstrated; but that must not be misconstrued as a sign of weakness. However, he must make them (decisions) fast to prove that he is not soft, as SNL is attempting to insinuate.

P.S. This blog does not favor any person or group.

THE PAY CZAR.

The Obama Pay Czar Ken Feinberg, according to the Wall Street Journal, has acted to stop the bonuses of Bank of America's CEO Ken Lewis, and he has asked him to give back more than $2 million dollars still due him.

However, while Lewis "voluntarily agreed" to the arrangement, he would get away with a package of wealth that he did not deserve, and that was a huge sum of retirement benefit hovering around $70 million dollars. Nevertheless, that was poultry feed in the financial world for CEOs and money managers who oversaw large investments by retirees and low level investors, who became prey for them. Some of those reimbursement packages, which were non-deserving, and named "the golden parachutes", ran into several millions of dollars and then some.

It was such type of news that made many people angry, that some people on Wall Street and other such places were being paid heavily, with hefty bonuses to booth, while others could not afford to pay their rent or tried to subsist on meager kinds of pay to survive; and in some cases, to have to take care of families consisting of any number of members.

The economic travail that the country was going through had come out of the mismanagement of capitalist institutions such as (the) banks and investment corporations, failing to minimize or control what yearly bonuses that should be going to the so called bosses, who already lived on the hog and had homes and houses around the world. There was no actual pay structure, except on paper, that those corporations used "to cook the books" to prevent any detection of greed that was perpetrated.

The word "bonus" was used loosely to conceal the dishonorable and nefarious activities that set large sums of money aside for those people who were involved in those activities, so that they could even boast of how much they made. Thus climbing the corporate ladder profitably.

When the media, which by all standards, were part of the capitalist system, would overlook or fail to comment on the malfeasance that went on, in terms of how money was lavishly thrown around to compensate people in high positions and/or having hierarchical power in the financial industry, then the whole national economy would be crippled, and would even come to a standstill, as presently; and as such, everybody would eventually suffer as a result. Yet, why not? Probably they (the media) played the same dispicable game of paying out bonuses to their top employees, just as the others did.

If so, then the socialists that were clamoring for social justice and wealth distribution would be right, when part of society was permitted to get away with undeserved financial benefits and perquisites, or "perks", as they themselves called the practice, while others remained in abject poverty.

The pay Czar's responsibility is a fair one, to oversee pay structures that are, hitherto, shadowy; and that it is exceptionally good governance on the part of the federal government to have appointed him to carry out an obligation that is inevitably necessary.

The position compliments and commends the Obama administration.

HEALTH CARE AND THE POLLS.

There are a whole lot of percentages being bandied around by the so called experts on who is for or against the health care reforms that Congress is considering at the moment; and like balls on a basketball court, they are being shot haphazardly, and none seems to hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

Yet, in a basketball game, there is the loop to put the ball in to score; whereas in most of these polls, either from the news media sources or private organizations, the figures are so random, there is no way to know what people are objecting to. What is good for the gander is not what is good for geese types of surveys are what the media outlets are putting out.

In other words, some specificity must be expressed as to which plan or plans will allow people to see the doctors they prefer to see, or if they can retain the insurance plans they have when they move from one place to another, or whether the plans they have are adequate for themselves and their families. If people lose sight of what they really want in a plan, the obvious thing that will happen will be that they will only be able to make vital decisions on what they read in the newspapers or see on TV or even on hearsay.

These polls have to be able to pin-point some of the parts in many of these plans; and there are so many of them now; that are agreeable or disagreeable, judging from the questions that they the pollsters present to current insurance policy holders or potential ones, instead of making bland statements, such as "A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that by 54 percent to 35 percent, Americans oppose the reforms." or "more Americans disapprove, 50 percent, than approve, 42 percent, of the job President Obama is doing on health care.", when they are putting out information that must be designed to educate rather to confuse the general public.

The health care industry has become a gargantuan baggage, saddled with all kinds of problems; of waste, of over payment or charges, of corruption, of embezzlement, etc. etc.; people are insured or not insured for reasons only known to the health care insurance companies; and everybody knows that a reform of it is long overdue.

People are looking to approve of what will be good for them, and not just what they disapprove of, only to aim at embarrassing a new administration or making an opposing political point. That will not help lawmakers in their deliberations to produce a "clean bill of rights" for the insurance companies and the people they insure, alike. A spill over or a slack of any kind that they (insurance companies) cannot handle can be taken up by the government; hence, the Public Option proposition, to figure out what health care insurance coverage will be universal.

If ever there must be an equitable health insurance plan, it must be one that will be big enough to cover all Americans. Pollsters have to put out figures that will inform as well as educate.

HEALTH CARE AND THE SNOWE VOTE.

The Baucus health care plan had an up vote yesterday of 14 to 9 in favor, by the Senate Finance Committee; with the sole Republican vote of Senator Olympia Snowe joining the majority to pass the bill. Yet, that was stage one, as there were other bills being considered by both Houses of Congress; the final merge of all of them was still a long way away.

The bill that passed did not have the Public Option proposal that was present in most of the other bills, and therefore it did not exactly reflect a truly universal health care coverage that was promised by the principal candidates of both the Democratic and the Republican parties during the 2008 electioneering campaign.

The candidates were advocating for two different plans that were both geared to cover all citizens, and thus not leaving anybody out, including of course the 45 to 50 million people that were not presently insured.

That was the picture presented by both sides on the hustings on the campaign trail, and people judged them and voted according to their own choices.

They felt that the politicians were all talking about the same thing, but in two different ways; and that was concerning the fact that a Universal Coverage plan for all Americans was what the voters should expect, whether it was affordable or not.

The missing part of the bill that was passed by the Senate Finance Committee therefore did nothing to fulfill that promise made during the campaign, because the only way to have a health care plan that would cover everybody would be one that would include a public option proposition, which would cater to the many uninsured. The White House sent all its health care advisers to Capitol Hill yesterday to proselytize members of Congress, some of whom were Democrats, to agree to make public option a part of any plan that would finally emerge, to really make it (plan) universal.

What the Insurance companies were jointly doing was to scare people to the death, that anything but a reform would ruin the health care industry. They had no specific plan of their own, except the status quo, which has left such a large number of people out and for so long.

They were talking about government control at one point, and the overall cost of health care at another; yet, they refuse to accept that they were the cause of all the confusion that we saw today in the industry. They were more concerned with profits (their profits) than the people they were supposed to take care of.

The Snowe vote was a step in the right direction, and it was going to be needed all the way through to the final stages that would provide an appropriate bill for the president to sign into law; but she herself has said that she was not for a plan that included public option as part of it.

Let us hope that she would change her mind, and the minds of others (lawmakers) like her would also change along the way, to provide everyone in America a good universal health care plan.

THE SENATOR AND THE CHURCH.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid naturally has a whole lot on his political plate these days, dealing with the Health Care reform that has taken up the time of lawmakers more than any other issue, except perhaps the troop demand question to boost up forces in Afghanistan.

Yet, he took time out of his busy schedule to berate his own church, accusing it of "waste of church resources and good will" for its support of the successful Proposition 8 ballot measure in California last year, banning "homosexual weddings".

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, he brought up the topic in his office last week when he met with the organizers of the National Equality March, which took place over the weekend in Washington, D.C. He "felt it was harmful for the church to focus on such a divisive issue.", the report continued; he told those people in his office who represented the marchers and the homosexual community.

The majority leader as we all knew has had a liberal outlook all his life, and nobody would dispute that he could voice out his personal opinion on a myriad of topics; but this one called for a comment of his relationship with his church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and his support for homosexual rights, all at the same time.

The church's policy to oppose any move to recognize "same-sex marriage" was based on biblical teachings, and there was no way that it would ever deviate from that point, or else it would be a contradiction of its own beliefs as a church. One such pertinent belief was the fact that homosexuality was a "sin", and for the Senator to discourage his church in taking a stand to prohibit something that was sinful meant a whole lot of ambiguity on his part as a church member.

Of course, the issue was divisive, and it would always remain divisive, because there were those of us who believed that homosexuality was unproductive and repugnant; a behavior that was self-imposed by those who claimed it as a lifestyle. What others were objecting to was that lifestyle being flaunted in the public place and being made to look normal, which it was not; and that was where the Senator went wrong. He should see things with both of his eyes opened; that not all appreciated that lifestyle.

The nation wanted better things to come out of the Obama administration; an expectation especially of those who voted for him; and as majority leader of his (Obama's) party, the Senator should incline himself with more important matters.

In other words, accepting the flaunting of an abnormality should not be the Senator's preoccupation; it should be one of those non-expectancies of the government; and particularly as his own political future seemed precarious, judging from the low ratings in regard to his performance in the Senate, it would be advisable for him to stay away from controversies of that kind.

As a leader, he should concentrate on the "load on his plate" where it counted most, for the sake of all the people and not just a faction which was looking to impose a lifestyle on others who did not want it. The "issue" would not be divisive then.

AFGHANISTAN WITH LESS?

Half measures are never good; they are never advisable, and therefore, many Americans will implore President Obama to agree to send the minimum recommendation of troops, as Gen. McChrystal has suggested, which is 40,000 (troops) to Afghanistan.

It is true that the decision to send any more troops is a very difficult one, but it must be made with a great measure of confidence on the part of the White House. We all know that the cabinet is split on this issue; however, so long as he has the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the side that is advocating on behalf of Gen. McChrystal, his decision will be acceptable to a great majority of people.

It is also obvious that he has a great deal of trust in the general; and that clearly showed, when he offered him the position to head the NATO forces in that war torn country. He has the experience and background of a well versed military commander; and he is held in high esteem by many senior officers at the Pentagon, as being a truly competent soldier, and therefore his recommendation must not be taken lightly by the administration.

There is always a sharp contrast between doing certain things, when the urge is lukewarm, on one hand, but hot with a strong conviction, on the other. We all hope that the president is in the mood for the latter; and although, he has to pacify some of the members of his cabinet, particularly Vice-President Joe Biden, who is for a "new strategy", which will or will not pay off. However, so long as he (Obama) has made up his mind to send additional forces, it has to conform with what the generals on the ground are asking for.

Anything else will be deemed as a half-baked proposition that will not be helpful to the war effort, since the Taliban is recruiting and adding more fighters to the insurgency each and every day. Nobody knows their exact numbers, but there are millions of men in Afghanistan and Pakistan from whom they can extract any number of militants who will always be on the ready to join in the war.

That is a fact that the government must take into consideration; and so, to send fewer men and women to the war zone will undermine the seriousness and determination, with which it (government) attaches to winning the Afghan war. It is, after all, a war of necessity and it must be won decisively; and Gen. McChrystal is ready, willing and able to achieve that end. He has the support of the nation; and now, all he needs is the backing of the Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, and the troops to accomplish it.

Therefore less troops will not suffice.

PLEASE, MR. PRESIDENT.

President Obama's courting homosexuals to expose their sexual identity in the military is gruesome. It will destroy the morale of the same men and women he says he is leading to fight two wars.

Besides, what would the Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan think, if they were told that they were fighting a bunch of.... Believe me, they (Muslims) would fight to the death. Mark it on the wall.

What was going on has been nomenclature switches that have been dressed up in different garments; and to say that homosexuality was a civil and/or human rights issue would be turning the whole world upside down. If not, how about polygamy, promiscuity and other such deviant traits that society has declared as taboo for many, many years?

The organization that invited the president to its annual dinner called itself "the Human Rights Campaign", which was a name taken out of context, because "On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and that covered every human being, including the people who were now assuming the name to conceal their aberrant sexual behavior. Any more claims for human rights would therefore be redundant on their part.

Human rights dealt with serious topics such as genocide and ethnic cleansing; not mental anguish with regard to sexuality.

Congress was right in imposing the "don't ask; don't tell" rule on the military, because lawmakers saw the dangers in having to group people together who did not trust each other, particularly on the war front. That was what the whole thing was about; the trust between persons who were fighting alongside each other, with those persons having different sexual intentions. That would be a perfect recipe for failure in the battlefield. To "level the field" was the reason; and changing that rule would devastate the moral fiber of the military.

After all what is homosexuality? What does it mean? Except that, it is only a decadent sexual attitude, which is outside the norm of natural productivity; meaning, it rules out procreation in the lives of those who indulged in it. A lifestyle characterized by iniquitous arrogant mannerism. Is that what the Obama government going to base its policies on? Also knowing perfectly well that it is purely self indulgent and must be kept private?

Most of us realized that the idea was a plank in his platform during the 2008 political campaign; but that was during the campaign; and he himself never dreamed that he would become president; but by God's grace, he became one. Did that mean that he should keep every promise? No politician could ever do more than what was politically realistic; and Congress would be there to put the brakes on him, as both Houses were doing to his Health Care reform proposals presently, if he dared to change the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military law that they themselves passed. It (law) was to keep the military in tact and unified; and rescinding it would "throw a spanner in the works", so to speak.

Declaring sexual orientation in the past was bad for the military, and it was still bad for the military now. So, please, Mr. President, do not let them lure you into a false sense of accomplishment for you to rescind what was rightfully done by the Congress of the United States. Any move to change the ruling would be foreboding; and that would certainly be part of your legacy.
　
P.S. True Christians have no place for homosexuals in their hearts.
P.P.S. The word "gay" is deceitful in the context it is used these days; it is meant to represent something clean and wholesome.

AXELROD AND THE COMMON MAN.

Presidential adviser David Axelrod might be right in stating that the president was considering "a lot of different factors", including the fraud allegations concerning the recent presidential election in Afghanistan, and America's strained relationship with Pakistan, in addition to other factors, with the troop request among them.

It seemed like he was downplaying the troop demand in a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, by saying, "We've tried it the other way, and it didn't work."; obviously referring to President Bush's policies in Iraq; however, that was false.

It was the added troops, commonly referred to as the surge, that changed the outcome in Iraq; and although, the situation there has not finalized, the United States did not have an enemy country on its hands.

The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have also said that the troop question was not for public debate; and we all agree with that statement.

However, President Obama should learn about what the common man in the street was thinking; and therefore a little window, slightly as it might be, should be opened for that purpose.

That was to let him know that he, in the grand scheme of all the topics that he was dealing with, should prioritize his goals to make it easy for him, in his deliberations toward those topics; and all an outsider would say was to have him place the troop request at the head of the list.

The fraud in the Afghanistan election was an internal affair; the balked relationship with Pakistan was a diplomatic subject; which, needless to say, could be handled by the State Department, while he contemplated what would happen if the Taliban gained the upper hand.

That was all that the common man and woman in the street were requesting; a simple piece of advise that would come in very handy at a critical point in the war against those who caused September 11th, 2001, attacks to happen. There would be no relenting on their part until they had done more damage to America; and that should be at the top of the president's mind, even now.

With all due respect to the president's members of the cabinet and political advisers, the little chance to speak their mind (the common man and woman) to the war effort, would make a difference in what the White House would eventually decide on it. They knew that, in the final analysis, it was the president's own decision that would count.

THIS OSLO GROUP.

This Oslo group should really make up its mind in awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama; and although, Americans were very enthused to have the president accorded such a great accolade; an honor that all citizens shared in. It should be regarded as a praiseworthy gesture, which should have the approval of the whole world.

First, it was for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,"; and second, citing "his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.". That in itself was a mouthful for the Norwegian Nobel Peace Committee; was it not?

The award was usually given for just one reason; but his was a combination of reasons designed to be a little bit more palatable to consume, but at the same time, slightly confusing; and if that was unintended, it looked quite deliberate; just as a "soft blow" that would catch the outside world unawares. Very clever indeed.

However the delight would end, when we realized that the award came at a time when he (Obama) was in the grips of a tough decision making period in his presidency; to be under so much pressure to send more troops into the Afghanistan theater to eliminate the insurgency there; and to get a peace prize at that particular moment?

He would be in such a dilemma, particularly, talking about a critical decision of sending soldiers to a Muslim country to fight the people there.

Of course, the committee knew about the Taliban, and of the insurgency, and the troop demand that was being debated in all political circles around the world; and for him to be made the recipient of the accredited and famous Nobel Peace Prize was outright ingenious. Nevertheless, it would rather put the president on the spot, if not under the spotlight, to influence his decision, one way or another.

Those of us, however, who wanted the U.S. and its allies to defeat the Taliban, would only hope that the president would not be cajoled in any way; and that he would make the right choice. His very competent cabinet and expert advisers would make sure of that.

Rest assured, Oslo group.

OBAMA AND THE GENERALS.

The argument that "the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the U.S." did not hold water. On the other hand, the Commander of the U.S. forces in that country has asked for more troops to fight a war that we all knew existed. So, what was the fuss about. You either would send troops or you would not.

President Obama himself has emphatically stated on many occasions that Al Qaeda and the Taliban caused the greatest threat to the security of the United States, and he would do whatever he could to annihilate them. That should remain the objectivity of the government; to make sure that American citizens were safe wherever they were; either vacationing in Bali or anywhere else in the world.

The war, the war, the war, and it must be fought; that was the issue. The generals responsible for winning it had spoken, and they had to be listened to. They had said categorically that any delay to fulfill the obligation of sending more troops to Afghanistan would eventually cause the U.S. to lose the Afghan war. They were on the ground in the war zone, and they were reporting what they saw and recommending that the Commander-in-Chief, President Obama, should give them the tools and the opportunity to finish the work that they had been given to do.

Their request was a very simple one. They needed more men to hold down the areas that they had already cleared of the enemy, and to able to go after them wherever they were hiding. The terrain there was rigorous, and the Taliban hid in the caves in the mountains, and they should be flushed out. More equipment and additional soldiers were required for the work at hand.

Any excuses on the part of the government would not suffice. The new strategies thought out in the Situation Room in the White House did not have any guarantees that they (strategies) would succeed. There would be those members of the administration that would say that they did not want another Iraq on their minds, and that domestic issues must be dealt with instead.

By George, they could be right; yet, the question still remained that the legacy left in Afghanistan would be a disastrous one, if the Taliban was given the chance to take control in that part of the world once again; and who would be responsible if that should happen; the government or the generals?

Fighting a war was not a game; and there were men and women in the White House, yesterday, who realized that more than those of us on the outside. Therefore, the sooner they gave in to the demands of the generals, the better it would be for everyone. In the interest of the U.S. forces fighting to keep America safe, the president should acquiesce to the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; the commanding military officer responsible for the Afghanistan war; for more troops.

AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN.

There are two extremely important decisions to be made by the government that will affect the foreign policy of the United States for a long time to come; and they are about Afghanistan and Iran. They will, and must come either this very week or soon.

The McChrystal request for more troops was the topic on which President Obama met with members of the Senate yesterday, which included Senator John McCain; yet, the report that the Pentagon was preparing to engage in an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was not far from the minds of the president and the lawmakers.

Afghanistan would be the tipping point of America's resolve to deal with the Islamist extremism question; whether it would be allowed to persist and continue to disturb the peace in the world, or to be crushed and be made perfectly clear to all the nations that practiced the Islamic religion that, no one was against them. They must accept the existence of other religions and recognize that the only way that all nations could live together was by peaceful co-existence.

With Iran would come the assurance that the proliferation of nuclear weapons has to stop; and that the government's orders for the Pentagon to use a bunker-busting bomb, called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), to eliminate and destroy Iranian uranium enrichment facilities would send a message to those who were aspiring to acquire nuclear bomb making technology, be they North Korea or Venezuela.

Pentagon's request has previously been made in a classified notification document, displayed on ABC News site, to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees during this summer, to "accelerate the integration of the bomb onto B-2 stealth bombers."; and that the notification appearing publicly in the news indicated that an approval has been given.

It now behooved Iran to come clean and work things out peaceably with the U.S. government before too late; for under the circumstances, and with Iran's secrecy of its nuclear program, it would not be long now, when its ambition to equip itself with nuclear weapons, would be relegated into the doldrums of world history.

Any damage done, after the fact, would not be the Obama administration's fault, if the bombing should take place during his (Obama's) watch; however, the fact remained that some action on the part of the administration dealing with Iran was imminent; and it would be that Iran should have considered the resolve of the president to rid the world of nuclear weapons in his speech at the United Nations Organization General Assembly meeting only a couple of weeks ago.

His administration's objective was also spelled out in the orders given the Pentagon to pursue in dealing with Iran; and that has been made exceptionally clear in the aforementioned government notification.
　
'Urgent Operational Need'

" The notification was tucked inside a 93-page "reprogramming" request that included a couple hundred other more mundane items.
Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).", Article, J. Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? 10/06/09, 2009. Retrieved 10/07/09 2009, Website, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-preparing-bomb-iran/story?id=8765343

The decision on Iran's determination to overrule the U.N. Security Council resolution on disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which was chaired by President Obama himself, was as necessary as one on troops increase in Afghanistan; and they must be made with all the seriousness they required.

The U.S. foreign policy would remain "sacrosanct" and blameless; and no amount of criticisms would be deemed as proper or reasonable against the notion that it sought to bring about a new world order that would cater to the peace of all humankind.
　

THE INTERNET AND THE ORDINARY PERSON.

The control of the Web would be a disastrous adventure on the part of the government. It would curb the freedom that people had known since the beginning of time. It would decimate many lives.

In an article under "Opinion" titled, Obama Wants to Control the Web, on FOX News website, it seemed frightening to the point that the FCC would soon be shoving so much regulatory measures on the Internet; and it was a wonder that charging a fee or a monthly payment of some kind before the ordinary people could comment on an issue on the Web, let alone blog, as the case might be, to derive any kind of income, was not one of those measures.

However, when that should happen, only big business could go online (the Web) and present whatever they desired to push on the public. Why? Because they could afford any type of a fee or payment to the government, irrespective of how high it was. They would, in effect, had bought and paid for the Internet; and like the newspapers, TV, radio, magazines and other forms of (the) media, only the rich, the powerful and the affluent could afford to use it.

It would only be a privilege for the man in the street to contribute to the Internet or the Web, when he was in the news through a plane crash or an automobile accident, or something like a mugging happening to him. He would be sealed in to the same extent that we saw today, with big business having a self acquired enterprise by coercion of the government through money over those media mentioned above; using influential law firms to fight any violations.

We all knew what the government was attempting to do, and that was to make certain that there was no domination of any kind by any group or, for that matter, by the capitalist corporations, who have made the airwaves and the print media their personal properties, and were milking society, as a fleece sucked the blood out of a mule. They saw society as a carcase, and even though it was dead, they would kick it anyway. Or those who were raking in vast sums of money by way of pornography.

They were the ones to be controlled, and not the student, or a housewife with children to feed, or a retiree school teacher, or just out of luck, unemployed person, who could not get a sanitation job even if he or she tried to; but he or she could write and make a living out of it (writing) through the Web.

The FTC (the Federal Trade Commission) vote of 4-0 to regulate "blogging" was so frightening, it left mothers and unemployed fathers, as well as debt riddled people, with poor students among them, crying their eyes out. They knew that the word "regulation" meant nothing but control of the only medium, the Web, that has truly bestowed freedom on human kind; and was the exercise of that freedom going to be taken away? Good grief.

Under the tutelage of a White House staffer by the name of Susan Crawford, who happened to be a well known Marxist socialist, and who has been organizing the "OneWebDay", along side the radical environmental Earth Day campaign idealists, who just wanted to bamboozle everyone, but themselves that they were the ones to restore the biomes of the world; and she being the Internet Czar, has been using that same word quite frivolously, calling it the neutrality regulation, to enhance her agenda to revolutionize the information industry, and for that matter, the whole world's media, including the Web, of course.

Therefore, the ordinary person has once again been caught between the capitalists, who had the profits to be able to afford to eat a $1500 dollar lunch, and the socialist activists, who wanted to correct the inadequacies that allowed such people to exist, but could not do so without soliciting them (capitalists) to help them (socialists) to achieve their aim, which was the total socialistic transformation of the Web. An Internet revolution that would remove the liberties that all people should equally have.

At this juncture, they would forget that they were sworn enemies; and they would clamp it down in such a way that only the very rich could afford to use it; whilst they, the same capitalist conglomerates, continued to derive their profits by the exploitation of the underprivileged, the common man and woman in the street.

Regulations? Yes; but only on those that deserved them.

THE GENERAL VERSUS THE GENERAL.

The tug-of-war that is going on in the United States now is quite obvious; with the top troop commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal saying that more troops are needed for the war effort, on the one hand, and National Security Adviser Jim Jones somehow quipping that, "I don't foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling," on the other.

The Sunday news programs were divided as well, leaving no room for error of "either you do or you don't" for President Obama; and therefore there was no doubt that the White House was in a quandary, to say the least.

However, the commitment to root out the insurgency was still at the top of the list, as the public has been led to believe by the numerous statements of the president. His administration's desire was to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda by all means.

Yet, in war, there should not be any waiting; and the time that was elapsing between now and when a decision would be made, one way or another, was very critical. If it was decided for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan, it would take at least four to five months to have them on the ground; while, if other strategies that were being developed to remedy the situation, would come at the appropriate period for the administration to see any tangible results that those strategies were working to benefit the general and the troops fighting the Afghan war, was also debatable if not questionable. In other words, there was no assurance of that happening.

Eight soldiers were killed on Saturday morning, when a pair of remote outposts were attacked by militant fighters streaming from an Afghan village and a mosque; and surely that was not a factor to support the assumption by Gen. Jim Jones that Afghanistan was not in imminent danger of the Taliban. The other general (McChrystal) was comparing the war with the game of football and said in a speech to the IISS in London, in effect, that it was easy to look at the scoreboard in a game, but it was not at all easy to view statistics that favored the other side in a war.

Every minute should count; every attack should be looked on as the enemy becoming bold every passing day, and being able to offset the progress of advances made by the U.S. soldiers; and every U.S. soldier's life lost must be felt in hearts of all Americans. There should therefore be no holdup in the decision making process of the Obama government to get the Afghanistan issue resolved.

Time was what nobody had; definitely not the general, and not the national security adviser, and certainly, not the president. A decision should be imminent rather than a delay. A decision on the war on terror should even be more imminent.
　

OBAMA AND THE IOC.

The 2016 Olympic bid was not a fiasco after all, for it did not make news headlines in the United States the day after, although it might probably have done so in Copenhagen, Denmark or Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.

The general public was not criticizing President Obama's trip either, because he was there not just as president, but also as a representative of Chicago, the city he and his family had called their home before they moved to the White House.

There would have been those who would say that he should not have gone, while others would have said the opposite. All in all, only FOX News (TV) had some comment to make on Mr. Obama's engagement in the voting of the IOC in Copenhagen, but it (comment) was not sterile (lacking the power to function); so not many Americans paid any attention to it.

Also, somehow, it was fruitful, because the president had the chance to meet with Gen. McChrystal on Air Force One to discuss obviously the war in Afghanistan; and the two men got to know each other better, no matter how short the time they spent together was. The president might have assured the general that the United States government was squarely and securely behind the effort to defeat the Taliban; and that he and his advisers were seriously looking into the general's demand for more troops there.

He Gen. McChrystal, the top military general in Afghanistan, was in London for a speech; and he traveled to Copenhagen at the president's request; and with the president being the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, he took the opportunity to get the facts of the Afghan war "from the horse's mouth", so to speak. The meeting was very "productive" by all accounts, judging from the reports about it.

It was a fairly good trip for the president, with his wife, Michelle, in toe, and in support for the bid to get the 2016 Olympic Games to take place in the Windy City. Oprah Winfrey (of the famous Oprah Winfrey Show) was also there to back him to bring something special to America, once again, that would make everyone proud.

He was never putting his reputation on the line, because he did not do it for himself, but for a city that he and his family really loved, Chicago.

P.S. This blog only does give credit where credit is due. It is no supporter of any person or group, politically or otherwise.

P.P.S. The I.O.C. is the International Olympic Committee.
　

OBAMA'S DENMARK TRIP.

The trip to Denmark to lobby Olympic leaders to give the 2016 Summer Games to Chicago would just be a respite that President Obama needed from his former political perch, when he used to be just a Senator from Chicago.

Moving into the White House must have considerably changed his outlook on life to the realization that politics as a whole was a "different kettle of fish", and that he must change some of his ideological positions and become politically mainstream, which was sometimes referred to as "middle of the road" position in the political world, to be able handle himself well, or failure would be stirring him in the face.

He has definitely got himself in a kind of a clutch, which was not sustainable with liberal thinking. He could only sustain himself with "free thought", which was entirely different from the former; and which the general American political philosophy allowed every citizen to be involved in. That was the original basis of free speech inducted into the American Constitution by its writers, to enable each person to hold his or her own thoughts and to express them outwardly whenever that was necessary.

Previously, he had surrounded himself with thoughts, some of which were radical, because some of his advisers were to the left of the political aisle, obviously; and he had the right to accept what was being dished out to him, for future political inclination's sake; however, presently, he was surrounded with expert advisers, whose advise he has the obligation to accept to be able to run the country as its president.

The responsibilities have become great, with domestic policies that he must pursue, as well as international issues that were so pressing and needed him to rethink his views in order to align himself with the realities of this world more than anything else to be able to cope with them.

Health Care reform, the bailout for the car and motor industry, the economy, and the streamlining of regulations for the banks and Wall Street, high Unemployment, Guantanamo, which was turning out to be a debacle, the CIA criminal investigation; the war in Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear controversy; plus Army Gen, Ray Odierno's report that the time limit of troop withdrawal in Iraq was unrealistic ; etc. etc.; all would cause him to need a break, hence his decision to make it to Denmark.

It would only be a good thing for himself, personally; and for the nation as a whole, to have him succeed in his quest to bring the Summer Olympic Games to Chicago. The little time that he would spend there, though very costly in terms of (the) national budget, would be worthwhile; and also he was entitled to a respite, only once, now and then, to properly perform his duties as president of the United States.

AFGHANISTAN WAR DECISION.

Presidents were meant to make tough decisions; it was only how to prioritize them that made the position unique and the expression, "The Buck Stops Here", meaningful.

Though, the war room in the White House, yesterday, was filled with high caliber politicians, top military strategists and expert advisers, who could analyze all types of situations and come up with several astute answers; but they were all there to assist the one person, who's word was vital to change any situation, one way or another, the president.

The Afghan war demanded that without more troops to impact an already complicated war against a resilient insurgency, it was just putting the men and women on the ground at risk, for insufficient back up of more soldiers to stabilize captured civilian populated parts of the country; a scenario, which, if it was not tackled with much precision tactics and a quickness of strong approach, could cause the United States and its Allies to fail, not just in Afghanistan.

The security of the whole region would drastically be affected, as the Taliban and Al Qaeda took control of that area of the world. Pakistan, which happened to be a nuclear power, would become more insecure, with having the military there in disarray; the economy in a confused state, and leaving a civilian political turmoil to persist.

President Obama and NATO's secretary-general met in the Oval Office last Tuesday to discuss the war in Afghanistan, and reached the conclusion that NATO's engagement there was strategically important and necessary. The Secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was shown on TV to have said that he was confident that "U.S. and allied troops will remain in Afghanistan (for) as long as it takes."

It was obvious that they had also discussed Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops, and that it was a priority and an urgency that should and could not wait. It must be acted upon without delay.

Surely, it was also difficult to put more men and women in harms way; however the dangers that confronted the world were far more critical, with the Taliban and Al Qaeda eventually gaining possession of nuclear Pakistan; Iran acquiring nuclear bomb making know-how, etc. etc.; and therefore, nothing should deter the president; not even his trip to Denmark to "push to land Chicago 2016 Olympic bid", from making a swift decision on the question of troop deployment to Afghanistan, as the generals there were demanding.

It would be a tough decision; but it was also a priority, and it would need to be expedited by the president on the premise that "the buck stops here", when the whole world was at risk.