Saturday, September 6, 2008
Cal Thomas
|
| Author |
Message |
Bill Pelland
Joined: 25 Feb 2008 07:34 am
Posts: 323
|
Posted: 18 Jun 2008 12:47 pm
Post Subject: Re: Fat Chance Cal Thomas is correct! Read Article
|
|
|
I sure would not depend on Cal Thomas to define Obama's agenda any more than I would rely on Keith Olberman to define McCain's agenda.
I much prefer to go to the candidates website first or to listen to their speeches (not sound bites) to get a feel for where a candidate stands.
McCain, when asked when the troops might began to come home, said that's not important. He did go on to say that being out of harm's way was the important thing but I think the troops would greatly disagree with the not important part.
Obama is fighting to restore veterans rights to education and proper health care. He also wants to redirect our military efforts to Afghanistan where they are truly needed now. Last month we lost more soldiers in Afghanistan than in Iraq and it is clear that the Taliban is gaining strength.
Obama, a leader that can restore our position as world leader in foreign policy, may be able to get Nato to commit more troops to Afghanistan. Bush's policies in the middle east have been a disaster and I'm sure is the reason the Saudi's have not caved in to increasing oil production and why our Nato allies will not commit more troups to Afghanistan.
Obama for President
Noriega for US Senate
Bill Pelland
Murchison, TX
|
Bill Pelland
Murchison Tx
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Author |
Replies |
Bill Bala
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 11:55 pm
Posts: 212
|
Posted: 18 Jun 2008 10:23 pm
Post Subject: Re:Fat Chance Cal Thomas is incorrect!
|
|
|
Judging by the reactions to his column, Cal Thomas seems to be pushing the right buttons and while he may not be defining it, He may be on to something about Obama's agenda.
Obama said on Fox, “I will listen to Gen. (David) Petraeus, given the experience that he’s accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say.” Admirable. But in testimony last September before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Obama is a member, Gen. Petraeus said, “I believe Iraq’s problems will require a long-term effort.” The day after Petraeus’ testimony, Obama called for the United States to “Immediately begin to remove our combat troops from Iraq.” Which is it, immediate, or heeding Gen. Petraeus and his long-term approach for bringing stability to Iraq? |
Take another look at Cal's article, you'll be seeing these items again and again.
As far as redirecting military forces goes, Obama would have to listen to the military leadership and turn a deaf ear on those in his party who want to reinstitute the draft, set arbitrary time tables for withdrawing all forces (even civil affairs and training staff) from Iraq, and may actually have to commend those who participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom for a job well done.
As the new leader of his party, Obama could direct Ms. Pelosi to be a little more cooperative at getting budget aproprations for the war in Afghanistan SO FEWER OF OUR TROOPS GET KILLED OR WOUNDED. He doesn't seem to demonstrating that caliber of leadership. tough break for the guys in the field.
By the way, Bush's mideast policies have not been a disaster, the Saudis are going to increase production, and NATO is committing more troops (not troups) to Afghanistan. Read the other parts of the paper sometime.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Autos
FAQ
Search Forums
Log in
Register
