This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves with traveling these days. I appear to not be the only one as altercations between passengers are making the news more lately. In fact, a flight was diverted because two passengers got into a heated argument over this issue. What is this issue? Passengers reclining their seats during the flight. It is very inconsiderate of the passenger behind you and downright rude and insensitive.
Years ago, seats were wider and had much more legroom. One could easily recline their seat with no imposition on the person behind them. This was a great feature when on a long flight and you wanted to kick back and take a nap.
However times have changed. Airlines have found ways to squeeze more seats into a small space. It has gotten to the point where you have a very limited space to so much as pull down the tray in front of you. I recently flew on United Airlines and they do offer the ability to "upgrade" to a row of seats that do offer a bit more legroom than their economy seats.
For the economy seats where space is very limited, it is my belief that airlines should either physically fix the seats so that they can not recline, or at a minimum make it a policy that if someone is sitting behind you then you can not recline your seat. Some will argue that they paid for their seat and thus should be able to recline if they so choose. I argue back that the person behind you paid for their seat and deserves their seat space without feeling like the person in front of them is in their lap. If you have a long flight and wish to be able to recline then feel free to upgrade to a seat with more legroom. I have no problem with that. But back in the economy seating, reclining should be forbidden outright, or at a minimum when a person is seated behind you.
I am encouraging all Airlines to revisit their policy on this and look at it from both passengers point of views.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Michael Dunn... you are a murderer. It is just plain and simple.
By now, I am sure that you have heard of the State of Florida vs Michael Dunn case (aka the "Loud Music" Case). This past weekend Mr Dunn was convicted on 3 counts of Attempted Murder and a mistrial was declared on the more serious 1st-degree Murder charge. Prosecutors have promised to pursue another trial to convict Mr Dunn on that charge. If you are unfamiliar with the case, there were 4 black youths in an SUV playing their music loudly. A white man asked them to turn the music down. A confrontation ensued and the white older man opened fire (10 shots I believe) into the SUV killing one of the passengers, Jordan Davis.
Some have argued that because the jury did not return a guilty verdict on the 1st degree murder charge, then Mr Dunn got away with murder. And somehow this means that it is okay for a white man to kill a black boy still today. My first reaction is that Michael Dunn is no young man (he is 47 years old). The charges that he was found guilty of carry potentially 60 years of prison by themselves. So even without the murder conviction, the guy is going to live his remaining life behind bars. Period. Additionally, he was not acquitted of the charge. The jury just could not all come to an agreement that it was 1st degree murder. So the Prosecution gets to have another trial to prove their case all over again. But at the end of the day, the guilty verdicts on the other charges are in effect. Albeit subject to appeal, but that will take years and I believe the facts stand on their own. So no... Mr Dunn did not get away with murder. Our justice system is working just as it is intended.
Personally I think the Prosecution should go for 2nd degree murder instead. I honestly don't believe that Mr. Dunn intended to kill Jordan Davis. The topic of this Prosecutor in Florida over charging crimes is starting to gain merit as a topic. He over charged the Zimmerman case and I believe he over charged this case as well. But that will have to be a different topic for a different day.
Today's headlines have Mr Dunn claiming that he is the victim in this case. The more this guy talks the more ignorant he proves himself to be. The media is eating this up like crazy and really hyping it up. Mr Dunn is no victim in this case. Mr Dunn is a murderer.
First, if Mr Dunn was offended by the loud "Thug Music" as he called it, then he should have gone into the store with his fiance so that he did not have to listen to it. Instead he chose to stay in the car. Secondly, he took it upon himself to ask the youths to turn down the music. I have no doubt that he thought he was asking in a polite manner. The victims testified as such and the music was turned down. However, according to their own testimony, Jordan Davis took issue with the request and demanded that the music be turned back up. Which it was. From there the "stories diverge". Mr Dunn claims that threats were made on his life. That Jordan Davis told his friends that he was going to kill him. My initial thought is... "How did Mr Dunn hear these threats over the loud music?"
I have two issues with Mr Dunn's self defense claims. Number one, no one testified seeing any of the youths get out of their vehicle and approach Mr Dunn's car in a threatening manner. They were in their vehicle and Mr Dunn was in his. Mr Dunn was not physically being assaulted. Disrespectful verbal assault does not justify pulling out a gun and firing 10 shots into another vehicle. Number two, if Mr Dunn truly felt that he was in danger, then after the victims drove off he should have ran into the store and demanded they call 911. He should have stayed on the scene and spoken with officers to report the threat on his life and the altercation. However he left and drove to his hotel, ordered a pizza and relaxed for the evening. While no one will ever truly know if those youths really did have a gun and they discarded it while they were away from the gas station (they later returned begging for help for their dead friend), I am a betting man that this was just a "story" made up by Mr Dunn to claim it was all self-defense.
So a victim of being disrespected by a group of youths? Maybe. But you are a grown man and by no means does that grant you the right to get mad, escalate the situation, and then randomly fire a gun at them. No Mr Dunn, you are a murderer. It really is just that plain and simple. You deserve all of the prison time that you get.
Some have argued that because the jury did not return a guilty verdict on the 1st degree murder charge, then Mr Dunn got away with murder. And somehow this means that it is okay for a white man to kill a black boy still today. My first reaction is that Michael Dunn is no young man (he is 47 years old). The charges that he was found guilty of carry potentially 60 years of prison by themselves. So even without the murder conviction, the guy is going to live his remaining life behind bars. Period. Additionally, he was not acquitted of the charge. The jury just could not all come to an agreement that it was 1st degree murder. So the Prosecution gets to have another trial to prove their case all over again. But at the end of the day, the guilty verdicts on the other charges are in effect. Albeit subject to appeal, but that will take years and I believe the facts stand on their own. So no... Mr Dunn did not get away with murder. Our justice system is working just as it is intended.
Personally I think the Prosecution should go for 2nd degree murder instead. I honestly don't believe that Mr. Dunn intended to kill Jordan Davis. The topic of this Prosecutor in Florida over charging crimes is starting to gain merit as a topic. He over charged the Zimmerman case and I believe he over charged this case as well. But that will have to be a different topic for a different day.
Today's headlines have Mr Dunn claiming that he is the victim in this case. The more this guy talks the more ignorant he proves himself to be. The media is eating this up like crazy and really hyping it up. Mr Dunn is no victim in this case. Mr Dunn is a murderer.
First, if Mr Dunn was offended by the loud "Thug Music" as he called it, then he should have gone into the store with his fiance so that he did not have to listen to it. Instead he chose to stay in the car. Secondly, he took it upon himself to ask the youths to turn down the music. I have no doubt that he thought he was asking in a polite manner. The victims testified as such and the music was turned down. However, according to their own testimony, Jordan Davis took issue with the request and demanded that the music be turned back up. Which it was. From there the "stories diverge". Mr Dunn claims that threats were made on his life. That Jordan Davis told his friends that he was going to kill him. My initial thought is... "How did Mr Dunn hear these threats over the loud music?"
I have two issues with Mr Dunn's self defense claims. Number one, no one testified seeing any of the youths get out of their vehicle and approach Mr Dunn's car in a threatening manner. They were in their vehicle and Mr Dunn was in his. Mr Dunn was not physically being assaulted. Disrespectful verbal assault does not justify pulling out a gun and firing 10 shots into another vehicle. Number two, if Mr Dunn truly felt that he was in danger, then after the victims drove off he should have ran into the store and demanded they call 911. He should have stayed on the scene and spoken with officers to report the threat on his life and the altercation. However he left and drove to his hotel, ordered a pizza and relaxed for the evening. While no one will ever truly know if those youths really did have a gun and they discarded it while they were away from the gas station (they later returned begging for help for their dead friend), I am a betting man that this was just a "story" made up by Mr Dunn to claim it was all self-defense.
So a victim of being disrespected by a group of youths? Maybe. But you are a grown man and by no means does that grant you the right to get mad, escalate the situation, and then randomly fire a gun at them. No Mr Dunn, you are a murderer. It really is just that plain and simple. You deserve all of the prison time that you get.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Syria... The Pandora's Box of our future?
I do not claim to be an expert on the Middle East. I do however understand that we can not apply the same reason and logic when dealing with that region as we would dealing with anyone else. History has proven that it does not work.
We have seen uprisings in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. I do believe that the people of those nations should not be oppressed and deserve to live free from Tyranny. The problem is that they do not understand how to live in a democratic world. Take Egypt for example. They elect a President, and rather than wait for the next election like we do here, a percentage of the population decides to stage a military coup.
I do believe that our Foreign Policy is in shambles. It is absolutely disgraceful and embarassing. I do not put all of the blame on our current Administration, but I do believe that they have made it worse rather than better. The sheer incompetence of this Administration is overwhelming. Sadly the media has refused to hold them accountable. I do fear that through this Administration's incompetence, they may have backed us into having no choice but to respond militarily. President Obama said himself, ""If you don't do it, you send a message of impunity. Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah will look at the United States and say 'Nothing means anything' -- that's what's at stake here."
Syria is a true quagmire in my view. The rebels there are begging for the world's help. I feel for them. But Al Qaeda is in there fighting alongside the rebels. Al Qaeda is our sworn enemy. So not only will we have to deal with the current regime, but we will have to figure out who is Al Qaeda and who are legitimately Syrian Rebels. And if we do help the rebels, will Al Qaeda turn their attention towards us?
CNN reported this morning, "In June, France said sarin had been used several times in the war, including at least once by the Syrian regime." Hmm... now if chemical weapons have been used previously several times and "at least once by the Syrian Regime" then who else is using them and where is the outcry against those groups as well?
Don't get me wrong, NO Government on this planet should use Chemical Weapons. Especially on its own people. It is absolutely unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Assad and his regime should be punished for using chemical weapons on its own people.
Obama is quickly learning what Bush learned a long time ago. The UN is a joke. Russia and China are hell bent to veto anything that the rest of the world believes is the right course of action. The Security Council has become a laughing stock as it is the epitome of grid lock. Doing anything in this world with the UN's blessing is nearly impossible. So I do not hold President Obama to the "Must have UN Permission" to proceed standard.
I have grave concerns when I do not see our normal allies up in arms sharing our same outrage and desire to do something about it. Our European Allies in recent days have pulled back the rhetoric and are now calling for diplomatic solutions. Why? Is it because they see similar polls where 80% of our citizens oppose military action against Syria? Or do they know something that our media is withholding from us?
I believe that based upon History, Military action is the only option that will have any long term success. Unfortunately that option requires more than just firing some tomahawks from the Mediterranean if we are going to see any fruitful success. For us to do that though, we need to get a coalition together like we did in the first Gulf War. We can not do this alone. What happened to the League of Arab Nations? You never hear about this organization the last several years? These are the people that should be screaming and taking the lead with us acting in support.
My largest concern/fear is that if we attack Syria, that this will cause a domino effect in the region. Russia and China don't scare me because they will not get militarily involved against us. They have too many higher priorities than to go to war with us. But we have the loonies in Iran. I am not convinced that they are not smart enough to not use this as an opportunity to start trouble with Israel. Remember that the people in power there believe that this is all a sign of their equivalent to our "Revelations" in our Bible.
Remember that both World Wars started in what appeared as isolated events that escalated. Is Syria that Pandora's Box that could lead to a much bigger conflict? I don't believe that we are talking World War 3 here, but I do fear a war that makes the recent wars look small.
I am glad that President Obama is going to go through Congress. He really doesn't have a choice after his VP went all over the airwaves in 2007 threatening impeachment of Bush if he attacked Iran without Congress approval. I do not hold any criticism of President Obama for having to take this course. Frankly, given the risks of escalation, I would feel better if Congress was involved versus just President Obama.
I do pray that our President and the leaders in Congress make the right decision to get us through this. I am against going at this alone. I hope that the world's attitude changes after the UN reports come out proving that Chemical weapons were indeed used. And if the report doesn't prove it, then I hope that we will pursue diplomatic avenues until we do have our allies lined up in support of military options.
We have seen uprisings in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria. I do believe that the people of those nations should not be oppressed and deserve to live free from Tyranny. The problem is that they do not understand how to live in a democratic world. Take Egypt for example. They elect a President, and rather than wait for the next election like we do here, a percentage of the population decides to stage a military coup.
I do believe that our Foreign Policy is in shambles. It is absolutely disgraceful and embarassing. I do not put all of the blame on our current Administration, but I do believe that they have made it worse rather than better. The sheer incompetence of this Administration is overwhelming. Sadly the media has refused to hold them accountable. I do fear that through this Administration's incompetence, they may have backed us into having no choice but to respond militarily. President Obama said himself, ""If you don't do it, you send a message of impunity. Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah will look at the United States and say 'Nothing means anything' -- that's what's at stake here."
Syria is a true quagmire in my view. The rebels there are begging for the world's help. I feel for them. But Al Qaeda is in there fighting alongside the rebels. Al Qaeda is our sworn enemy. So not only will we have to deal with the current regime, but we will have to figure out who is Al Qaeda and who are legitimately Syrian Rebels. And if we do help the rebels, will Al Qaeda turn their attention towards us?
CNN reported this morning, "In June, France said sarin had been used several times in the war, including at least once by the Syrian regime." Hmm... now if chemical weapons have been used previously several times and "at least once by the Syrian Regime" then who else is using them and where is the outcry against those groups as well?
Don't get me wrong, NO Government on this planet should use Chemical Weapons. Especially on its own people. It is absolutely unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Assad and his regime should be punished for using chemical weapons on its own people.
Obama is quickly learning what Bush learned a long time ago. The UN is a joke. Russia and China are hell bent to veto anything that the rest of the world believes is the right course of action. The Security Council has become a laughing stock as it is the epitome of grid lock. Doing anything in this world with the UN's blessing is nearly impossible. So I do not hold President Obama to the "Must have UN Permission" to proceed standard.
I have grave concerns when I do not see our normal allies up in arms sharing our same outrage and desire to do something about it. Our European Allies in recent days have pulled back the rhetoric and are now calling for diplomatic solutions. Why? Is it because they see similar polls where 80% of our citizens oppose military action against Syria? Or do they know something that our media is withholding from us?
I believe that based upon History, Military action is the only option that will have any long term success. Unfortunately that option requires more than just firing some tomahawks from the Mediterranean if we are going to see any fruitful success. For us to do that though, we need to get a coalition together like we did in the first Gulf War. We can not do this alone. What happened to the League of Arab Nations? You never hear about this organization the last several years? These are the people that should be screaming and taking the lead with us acting in support.
My largest concern/fear is that if we attack Syria, that this will cause a domino effect in the region. Russia and China don't scare me because they will not get militarily involved against us. They have too many higher priorities than to go to war with us. But we have the loonies in Iran. I am not convinced that they are not smart enough to not use this as an opportunity to start trouble with Israel. Remember that the people in power there believe that this is all a sign of their equivalent to our "Revelations" in our Bible.
Remember that both World Wars started in what appeared as isolated events that escalated. Is Syria that Pandora's Box that could lead to a much bigger conflict? I don't believe that we are talking World War 3 here, but I do fear a war that makes the recent wars look small.
I am glad that President Obama is going to go through Congress. He really doesn't have a choice after his VP went all over the airwaves in 2007 threatening impeachment of Bush if he attacked Iran without Congress approval. I do not hold any criticism of President Obama for having to take this course. Frankly, given the risks of escalation, I would feel better if Congress was involved versus just President Obama.
I do pray that our President and the leaders in Congress make the right decision to get us through this. I am against going at this alone. I hope that the world's attitude changes after the UN reports come out proving that Chemical weapons were indeed used. And if the report doesn't prove it, then I hope that we will pursue diplomatic avenues until we do have our allies lined up in support of military options.
Friday, October 19, 2012
First it was Big Bird, now it's Binders?
In Tuesday night's Presidential Debate, Romney discussed his cabinet being made up of a number of women. Here is the transcript:
Rather than talking about how the price of gas doubled over the last 4 years, or how the number of people on welfare has grown by 32%, or how we need to get 23 million people back to work, this is the hot issue that comes from the Democrats?
Can anyone really with a straight face sit there and say that Romney meant anything other than "Binders full of resumes of qualified women candidates?" Set the politics aside for a second and really ask yourself if you truly believe otherwise.
Furthermore, reading that answer that Romney gave, WHERE is there any example of sexism? I don't see it. In fact it looks like to me that he referenced a 3rd party to reinforce the fact that he is NOT a sexist!
Of course the main stream media won't report on this, but a number of women that worked for Romney's administration, including one or two that were on his cabinet, have come out in support of Romney and said that they enjoyed working for the man. One in particular said in an interview that while he didn't always agree with her opinion, she always felt like he respected her opinion on a topic. Does this really sound like a man that is sexist?
This is all just "noise" to distract the voters from the real issues. Can we please get back to the real issues at hand?!?! Seriously? Frankly all of this talk about Binders and Big Bird just makes President Obama and the Democrats look very desperate.
As a voter, I don't want to have all of this "noise" thrown at me. Tell me what you are going to do these next four years to address the high gas prices, how you are going to improve the economy so that more people are working and less people are on welfare. Tell me how you plan to address the budget deficits and the overall national debt. These are the issues that the American Voter is concerned about.
It was during this answer that Romney made the now infamous "Binders of Women" comment. Since making that comment the Democrats have seized upon this as if it were yet another example of Romney's and the GOP's sexist view of women. Seriously?CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?"ROMNEY: And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484_Page4.html#ixzz29kDLChMu
Rather than talking about how the price of gas doubled over the last 4 years, or how the number of people on welfare has grown by 32%, or how we need to get 23 million people back to work, this is the hot issue that comes from the Democrats?
Can anyone really with a straight face sit there and say that Romney meant anything other than "Binders full of resumes of qualified women candidates?" Set the politics aside for a second and really ask yourself if you truly believe otherwise.
Furthermore, reading that answer that Romney gave, WHERE is there any example of sexism? I don't see it. In fact it looks like to me that he referenced a 3rd party to reinforce the fact that he is NOT a sexist!
Of course the main stream media won't report on this, but a number of women that worked for Romney's administration, including one or two that were on his cabinet, have come out in support of Romney and said that they enjoyed working for the man. One in particular said in an interview that while he didn't always agree with her opinion, she always felt like he respected her opinion on a topic. Does this really sound like a man that is sexist?
This is all just "noise" to distract the voters from the real issues. Can we please get back to the real issues at hand?!?! Seriously? Frankly all of this talk about Binders and Big Bird just makes President Obama and the Democrats look very desperate.
As a voter, I don't want to have all of this "noise" thrown at me. Tell me what you are going to do these next four years to address the high gas prices, how you are going to improve the economy so that more people are working and less people are on welfare. Tell me how you plan to address the budget deficits and the overall national debt. These are the issues that the American Voter is concerned about.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Follow-up regarding Libya Attack
It amazes me how the Main Stream Media is completely sweeping this story "under the rug". I swear that Headlines talking about the failures of the Romney Campaign were more dominant in the news than this story. It is truly sad.
So what have we learned in the last 10 days? Our Administration spent the first 9 days claiming that the attack in Libya was an out of control spontaneous protest over an Anti-Muslim film. A trailer to a film at that. For several days the President of Libya disagreed with this and was very public in the International Media that this was a coordinated terrorist attack. One that they had warned the US about as much as 3 days prior to the attack. Today finally the Administration changed course and said that it is "self-evident" that this was a pre-meditated terrorist attack. Of course there was no mention of being alerted a few days prior.
The bottom line is that for 9 straight days our Presidential Administration lied to the American people. For 9 days they claimed that this was a spontaneous protest. Turns out there was no protest at all. It was a direct attack. They claimed that the Ambassador had "sufficient" security detail including 2 former SEALS. The fact of the matter is that the Ambassador's security was provided by a Libyan militia. The 2 former SEALS were NOT part of his security detail. They were there on "other business". But when the attack occurred they took up arms and attempted to repel the attack. They deserve Congressional Medals of Honor for doing so.
I believe that the President and White House has been so focused on the campaign that they completely dropped the ball here. While the attacks occurred and the days following, the President was busy with fundraisers and campaign events. He just started attending his Daily Security Briefings in person because it had gotten out that he skipped the majority of them thus far in his Presidency.
No I am not proposing that the President orchestrated this uprising in the Muslim world, nor this attack on our consulate. Normally, this would be a benefit to the Republicans. However, I believe it is the failed International policies and the naiveté of this administration that is to blame. This President claimed back in 2008 that if he were to be elected, then Muslim tensions and hatred toward us would magically diminish because of his background. I believe that this arrogance has proven his incompetence in the world.
I further blame the Main Stream Media for this lack of coverage of this event. Our country was attacked on 9/11 and yet they continue to keep this story on the back burner in fear that it look negatively on our President.
I hope that Congress will look into this. Who knew exactly what and when? How was this Ambassador not better protected? How did we go 9 days of being lied to, when the International Media clearly had the proper read on the story?
So what have we learned in the last 10 days? Our Administration spent the first 9 days claiming that the attack in Libya was an out of control spontaneous protest over an Anti-Muslim film. A trailer to a film at that. For several days the President of Libya disagreed with this and was very public in the International Media that this was a coordinated terrorist attack. One that they had warned the US about as much as 3 days prior to the attack. Today finally the Administration changed course and said that it is "self-evident" that this was a pre-meditated terrorist attack. Of course there was no mention of being alerted a few days prior.
The bottom line is that for 9 straight days our Presidential Administration lied to the American people. For 9 days they claimed that this was a spontaneous protest. Turns out there was no protest at all. It was a direct attack. They claimed that the Ambassador had "sufficient" security detail including 2 former SEALS. The fact of the matter is that the Ambassador's security was provided by a Libyan militia. The 2 former SEALS were NOT part of his security detail. They were there on "other business". But when the attack occurred they took up arms and attempted to repel the attack. They deserve Congressional Medals of Honor for doing so.
I believe that the President and White House has been so focused on the campaign that they completely dropped the ball here. While the attacks occurred and the days following, the President was busy with fundraisers and campaign events. He just started attending his Daily Security Briefings in person because it had gotten out that he skipped the majority of them thus far in his Presidency.
No I am not proposing that the President orchestrated this uprising in the Muslim world, nor this attack on our consulate. Normally, this would be a benefit to the Republicans. However, I believe it is the failed International policies and the naiveté of this administration that is to blame. This President claimed back in 2008 that if he were to be elected, then Muslim tensions and hatred toward us would magically diminish because of his background. I believe that this arrogance has proven his incompetence in the world.
I further blame the Main Stream Media for this lack of coverage of this event. Our country was attacked on 9/11 and yet they continue to keep this story on the back burner in fear that it look negatively on our President.
I hope that Congress will look into this. Who knew exactly what and when? How was this Ambassador not better protected? How did we go 9 days of being lied to, when the International Media clearly had the proper read on the story?
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Embassies Attacked
On Tuesday, September 11th, 2012 our embassies and consulates in both Egypt and Libya were attacked. At first, these were portrayed in the media as being spontaneous riots resulting from a film posted on YouTube that Muslims find to be insulting. Sadly, four Americans including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya were killed in the attacks.
Not only was our media slow to report on the breaking news, but the White House was slow to react as well. When Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, made a statement before the White House did, of course the media and administration attacked Romney. In fact on Wednesday, President Obama spent more time talking about Romney's comments than he did condemning the attacks and the Islamic extremists behind the attacks. One could argue that the condemnation of Romney's remarks still outnumber the condemnation of the attackers in the news media.
In the last 24 hours, more information is coming out. Unfortunately it is very disturbing information if indeed true.
I pray that these reports that Officials knew of these upcoming attacks ahead of time are incorrect. If they are indeed correct and our officials did nothing with the information, then I hope that the liberal news media will lambast Obama just as much as they recently did against Bush claiming that his administration ignored intelligence reports of the 9/11 events.
I really scratch my head behind the logic of not allowing the Marines to carry live ammunition. This naiveté amazes me. How is it NOT standard operating procedure for all Embassies in the middle east to be on High Alert on the anniversary of 9/11? In my opinion this is pure negligence on the part of the Administration and State Department.
Remember that it was this Administration that supported and encouraged the Arab Spring that brought down Mubarak in Egypt. With Mubarak's removal the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power. We have been giving them $1.5 billion dollars in aid. What do we get in return? They are openly calling for muslims to rise and protest/attack the US. Our embassy is attacked, overrun, and our flag is removed and burned in the streets. What is our response? Nothing. We are sitting back and watching.
Libya... In early 2011, rebels rose up against Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi. When Gaddafi fought back against these rebels, we came to the defense of the rebels and enforced a no fly zone. What do we get in return for these efforts? Our consulate is overrun, burned, documents are stolen, flag is burned, and four Americans lost their lives, including the US Ambassador. What is our response? A terse public statement condemning the attacks. Otherwise nothing.
I am not advocating that we should invade or go to war in these two countries. However, these events are directly the results of the failed Foreign Policies of our current President and his Administration. Appeasement and pacification will NOT work in the case of the Middle East.
If I were President, I would have had a statement and/or press conference Tuesday night. It would have been short and sweet simply condemning the violence and assuring the American People that my administration was on top of the situation and monitoring events closely. That my top priority was protecting our Embassies and Staff Members.
After that my next steps would be to call the leader of Egypt and tell him that I was suspending all future foreign aid to his country until their rhetoric and positions against our country change. Period. Same with Libya. I would call up the leader there and tell him that we were monitoring things and that his foreign aid from us was in severe jeopardy. Next, I would fly in teams of Marines to every Embassy and Consulate throughout the Middle East and Europe. I would ensure that these Marines are armed to the hilt. I would make it very clear to the local governments that we will protect our embassies and staff. As a result, ANYONE attempting to attack our embassy or attempting to scale our walls will be immediately shot. I know that sounds harsh. But if you scale our walls, we will view that as an attack and we will shoot first and ask questions later. If any leader protests our defending ourselves? Their foreign aid will be reviewed and will be in jeopardy as well.
While I believe that appeasement does not work, I would issue a statement condemning the controversial film and it's message. I would be clear that the US Government, nor the American people condone the message of this film.
I would also be "circling the wagons" with my allies in the region. Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and yes Israel too! I would also reach out to the Arab League as well. I would be consulting with all parties to determine a more long term response to these attacks.
Anyway, that is what I would do if I were President.
Not only was our media slow to report on the breaking news, but the White House was slow to react as well. When Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, made a statement before the White House did, of course the media and administration attacked Romney. In fact on Wednesday, President Obama spent more time talking about Romney's comments than he did condemning the attacks and the Islamic extremists behind the attacks. One could argue that the condemnation of Romney's remarks still outnumber the condemnation of the attackers in the news media.
In the last 24 hours, more information is coming out. Unfortunately it is very disturbing information if indeed true.
- Supposedly we received reports 48 hours earlier that these attacks were going to happen.
- Marines in Egypt were not allowed to carry live ammo to protect our Embassy and staff.
- In Libya, there were no Marines, but rather we had outsourced the security to Libyans who abandoned "their posts" when the violence started leaving the staff and Ambassador in danger.
I pray that these reports that Officials knew of these upcoming attacks ahead of time are incorrect. If they are indeed correct and our officials did nothing with the information, then I hope that the liberal news media will lambast Obama just as much as they recently did against Bush claiming that his administration ignored intelligence reports of the 9/11 events.
I really scratch my head behind the logic of not allowing the Marines to carry live ammunition. This naiveté amazes me. How is it NOT standard operating procedure for all Embassies in the middle east to be on High Alert on the anniversary of 9/11? In my opinion this is pure negligence on the part of the Administration and State Department.
Remember that it was this Administration that supported and encouraged the Arab Spring that brought down Mubarak in Egypt. With Mubarak's removal the Muslim Brotherhood rose to power. We have been giving them $1.5 billion dollars in aid. What do we get in return? They are openly calling for muslims to rise and protest/attack the US. Our embassy is attacked, overrun, and our flag is removed and burned in the streets. What is our response? Nothing. We are sitting back and watching.
Libya... In early 2011, rebels rose up against Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi. When Gaddafi fought back against these rebels, we came to the defense of the rebels and enforced a no fly zone. What do we get in return for these efforts? Our consulate is overrun, burned, documents are stolen, flag is burned, and four Americans lost their lives, including the US Ambassador. What is our response? A terse public statement condemning the attacks. Otherwise nothing.
I am not advocating that we should invade or go to war in these two countries. However, these events are directly the results of the failed Foreign Policies of our current President and his Administration. Appeasement and pacification will NOT work in the case of the Middle East.
If I were President, I would have had a statement and/or press conference Tuesday night. It would have been short and sweet simply condemning the violence and assuring the American People that my administration was on top of the situation and monitoring events closely. That my top priority was protecting our Embassies and Staff Members.
After that my next steps would be to call the leader of Egypt and tell him that I was suspending all future foreign aid to his country until their rhetoric and positions against our country change. Period. Same with Libya. I would call up the leader there and tell him that we were monitoring things and that his foreign aid from us was in severe jeopardy. Next, I would fly in teams of Marines to every Embassy and Consulate throughout the Middle East and Europe. I would ensure that these Marines are armed to the hilt. I would make it very clear to the local governments that we will protect our embassies and staff. As a result, ANYONE attempting to attack our embassy or attempting to scale our walls will be immediately shot. I know that sounds harsh. But if you scale our walls, we will view that as an attack and we will shoot first and ask questions later. If any leader protests our defending ourselves? Their foreign aid will be reviewed and will be in jeopardy as well.
While I believe that appeasement does not work, I would issue a statement condemning the controversial film and it's message. I would be clear that the US Government, nor the American people condone the message of this film.
I would also be "circling the wagons" with my allies in the region. Turkey, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and yes Israel too! I would also reach out to the Arab League as well. I would be consulting with all parties to determine a more long term response to these attacks.
Anyway, that is what I would do if I were President.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
The Gong is being rung...
When I was a youngster there was a TV show called "The Gong Show". You may remember it. A contestent would come on stage and perform a talent (usually very unsuccessfully of course). After enduring as much as they could, a judge would jump up and hit a huge Gong to signal the contestent to stop.
Congressman Akin, the Gong is being rung.
Your statement on Sunday was very offensive on so many levels. I realize that you have spent the last 48 hours apologizing profusely. However, the damage has been done. No matter how unfair you may feel that it is, the fact of the matter is that the damage is far more reaching than just your Senate Campaign in Missouri.
Despite their immediate condemnation of your statement, your statement is now being linked to the Romney/Ryan campaign as if they had said the statement themselves. This is the reality of today's political environment. You have interjected yourself into the national media and the presidential campaign in a very negative way. Rather than talking about the Economy and Jobs, they are now getting distracted with this controversy. Your continued candidacy will only prove to be a further distraction. You have become the "Christine O'Donnell of 2012."
Again the Gong is being rung. This is your queue to exit Stage Right. Please do the right thing and end your candidacy so that this controversy can quickly be forgotten and we can get back to the issues that matter in this election.
*Update - 08/21/2012 6:35pm Central
Let me be clear... while I disagree with Congressman Akin's position on abortion without exceptions, this is not the reason for my calling for his stepping down. If he had merely stated "I am against Abortion in all cases" and left it at that, this would never been a news item. My issue is that he did not have the sound judgement and political wherewithal to shut up beyond that. Instead he continued with the indefensible statement about "legitimate rape" and how a woman's body can shut down the potential for pregnancy as a result. This is complete nonsense and showed that he is not the candidate fit to represent the good people of Missouri.
Furthermore, he is completely oblivious and does not understand the far reaching damage that this has caused. We have now gone two days of talking about this issue instead of talking about the REAL issues that matter to the American People. He has proven to be a negative distraction in this election and will continue to do so as long as he is in this race.
Congressman Akin, the Gong is being rung.
Your statement on Sunday was very offensive on so many levels. I realize that you have spent the last 48 hours apologizing profusely. However, the damage has been done. No matter how unfair you may feel that it is, the fact of the matter is that the damage is far more reaching than just your Senate Campaign in Missouri.
Despite their immediate condemnation of your statement, your statement is now being linked to the Romney/Ryan campaign as if they had said the statement themselves. This is the reality of today's political environment. You have interjected yourself into the national media and the presidential campaign in a very negative way. Rather than talking about the Economy and Jobs, they are now getting distracted with this controversy. Your continued candidacy will only prove to be a further distraction. You have become the "Christine O'Donnell of 2012."
Again the Gong is being rung. This is your queue to exit Stage Right. Please do the right thing and end your candidacy so that this controversy can quickly be forgotten and we can get back to the issues that matter in this election.
*Update - 08/21/2012 6:35pm Central
Let me be clear... while I disagree with Congressman Akin's position on abortion without exceptions, this is not the reason for my calling for his stepping down. If he had merely stated "I am against Abortion in all cases" and left it at that, this would never been a news item. My issue is that he did not have the sound judgement and political wherewithal to shut up beyond that. Instead he continued with the indefensible statement about "legitimate rape" and how a woman's body can shut down the potential for pregnancy as a result. This is complete nonsense and showed that he is not the candidate fit to represent the good people of Missouri.
Furthermore, he is completely oblivious and does not understand the far reaching damage that this has caused. We have now gone two days of talking about this issue instead of talking about the REAL issues that matter to the American People. He has proven to be a negative distraction in this election and will continue to do so as long as he is in this race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)