As expected, I have received the anticipated reaction to my last two, less than complementary articles on John McCain, his questionable supporters and his 180 degree position changes. Of course, the reader's responses were very predictable in saying; "Well, what about Barack's changes on the War in Iraq, FISA immunity, the 2nd amendment and faith based organizations?"
These are fair questions. And as with my previous articles on John McCain, let's take on all four areas, one at a time.
Barack Obama's Position on Getting Out of Iraq:
On this one, I have to say that I believe that much of the noise being made about Obama's so called "flip-flops" are from those people that heard just what they wanted to hear during the recent primaries. Yes, Obama did say that "if he were elected, he would end the war". But if you will look closely at the details of what Obama has always said regarding leaving Iraq, he has said that the first thing he would do is call in the military chiefs and give them a new "mission". That mission would be to review the situation on the ground, start withdrawing troops immediately with a plan and a goal of withdrawing two brigades per month for a period of 16 months. As he had said at the beginning of his campaign, the pace of the withdrawal would be determined at the time, based on insuring the safety and security of the troops.
This is a real war and real people are dying. As with any war, the officers on the ground will need to have the flexibility for implementing their mission as carefully and efficiently as the circumstances allow. War means always having to deal with unstable sets of circumstances, regardless of the desires and goals that are set by their civilian commanders, that are sitting back in the US out of harm's way.
Recently Barack Obama reiterated that he has planned a "thorough assessment of his Iraq policy" with the commanders on the ground when he meets with them in Iraq later this summer. Obama has always spoken of consulting with the military commanders in the field as part of his plan for a phased withdrawal. Is the 16 month time-table still part of the plan? Barack currently says "yes", as he has yet to be given any indication by the US military that his plan for removing 2 brigades per month cannot be achieved. He did however add that what actually happens on the ground, when the withdrawals actually begin, will dictate how they proceed for achieving the goal of ending the war in Iraq.
And also remember that Obama has said for months that the real issue of terror in the area is in Afghanistan, where President Bush took his eye off the ball in order to preemptively invade Iraq. Afghanistan is now causing more causalities for the US military than are occurring in Iraq and the Taliban is now stronger than it was when the US invaded Iraq. Afghanistan is also now financing their war by their increased sale of raw opium and heroin around the world. Afghanistan is now estimated as being the main supplier of over 90% of the world's supply of opium and heroin.
Barack Obama's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Vote:
I have to admit that I was initially disappointed with Obama when he announced that he was supporting the compromise FISA bill. (This was the sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been denounced mainly by staunch liberals and liberal activists.) At the time, I could also have been included with that group of liberals, as I also did not feel it was proper to give the US telecom companies that had spied on Americans, legal immunity from civil prosecution. What I had missed in this case was where Barack was coming from in his attitude toward what the compromise bill did provide, if we could just get our minds past the telecom immunity issue.
First, we must remember that President George W. Bush, basically told the American public to "stuff it" when he disobeyed the law after 9/11 by ordering the telecom companies to spy on Americans without having a valid FISA court warrant. The companies were told by the NSA that they were "not to worry about it, the President was using his executive power to circumvent the law". The NSA also told the companies that it was a national security issue and the president would "take care of it". (Only one company, Quest, did tell the NSA to "stuff it" by the NSA not having a valid FISA warrant. ) After the 9/11 attack, the telecom companies apparently said, "I guess we had better get on board with the President," figuring that he had the power to make that decision.
Putting the immunity issue aside, Obama has been more worried about making sure that President Bush stop his illegal wire-tapping, as Obama has said, "now, without delay". He has obviously put the immunity issue as a second priority. As Obama has also stated, the new, compromise FISA bill "does support the grassroots movements of the Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interest ahead of our security and our liberty". He also says that the new compromise bill does provide "effective intelligence collection tools with the appropriate safeguards to stop the illegal wire-tapping of Americans".
As to the immunity issue, US Senator's Dodd, Feingold and Leahy have introduced an amendment that if approved, would strike Title II of the pending Senate compromise FISA bill, thus eliminating provisions that would force dismissal of the pending lawsuits against the telecom companies for illegal wire-tapping. If adopted, this provision would leave both the House and Senate bills silent regarding a grant of civil immunity to those companies that broke the law by wiretapping outside of FISA approval.
In addition, it has been pointed out that the current FISA bill only provides immunity for "civil" lawsuits against the telecom companies. It does not give them immunity against "criminal" lawsuits for breaking the law by illegally wire-tapping Americans without a valid FISA warrant.
Was Obama correct in supporting the compromise FISA bill? It can be seriously argued either way. However, Obama's goal was to stop Bush's illegal actions now, and not to wait until the FISA bill was "perfect". Apparently, he felt that a "half-a-loaf" now was better that "no-loaf", in dealing immediately with President Bush's illegal activities.
Obama's Response to the Supreme Court's latest Decision on the 2nd Amendment:
First, I have to say that I find it hard to believe that, what the group of American patriots in the late 1700's meant by the "right to bear arms", was NOT that they were thinking about the right to own any of the 19 types of military-style, semiautomatic weapons now available in the American gun market.
I also do not personally believe that Obama's view for halting the sale of semiautomatic weapons is what some devout gun enthusiasts are calling, "Obama's utter contempt for the second amendment".
Obama's statement on the "right to bear arms" is as follows, and I for one, tend to agree with his attitude on the subject:
"Americans broadly agree that guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, and that the rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be protected. We must work to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally ill through an effective background checking system, (Remember the massacre on the Virginia Tech campus by the mentally ill student....). We also have to strike a reasonable balance between public safety and sportsmen's rights.
I will continue to work for effective gun laws, including reinstatement of the assault weapons ban that the last [Republican] Congress allowed to expire, and for effective law enforcement. I will also speak out against the current culture of violence that traps so many of our young people today."
I'm sure this is not agreeable to the NRA's "gun lovers of America" or those Americans that do think that America's forefathers did actually mean that "bearing arms" meant that "having a shoulder-fired missile, an AK-47 and an Uzi in everyone's closet was perfectly OK".
I, on the other hand, think Obama's response is perfectly reasonable, and from my understanding, does not conflict with any previous statements from Obama regarding the second amendment and its freedoms.
Obama's Faith-Based Reforms:
Yes, Obama is a politician and in this case, I do believe that his intentions are from both deep in his heart and for being politically correct during an election year.
One must first understand, that Obama spent many of his early years working in economically depressed neighborhoods in the position of a dedicated community service worker. His friends at that time have said that they remember, "Obama as a good worker in the community, with a sharp mind and unshakable integrity. He was a young man who already had a passion for the underprivileged." It is also true, that many of the non-profit, benevolent organizations that he worked with in helping those less fortunate, "were faith-based organizations that were working in support of their community". In fact, it was through these organizations that Obama was eventually introduced to his own Christian beliefs and how he became aware of the tremendous good that can be provided by the many faith-based organizations.
Having this vast background in community service, Obama has apparently decided that it is time to take the past positive experience of government and religious groups working together, and to apply it to both secular and religious neighborhood partnerships in an expanded national neighborhood program.
Unfortunately, President Bush has attempted his program of supporting faith-based organizations with government money, but with little if any oversight of how it was to function. The Bush programs have been rift with finances disappearing, hiring discrimination (religious, gender and sexual orientation), government resources being switched without explanations and partisan and political decisions being made without any 3rd party oversight. Even David Kuo, Deputy Director of the Bush White House's Faith-Based Community Initiatives has said that, through this organization, "The White House gets the results that it really wants, but it never really wanted the 'poor people stuff'."
Obama's "Faith-Based Reform Plan" is currently designed so that the Bush sponsored, faith-based policies would be, "mended, not ended". Obama wants his faith-based agency. "working with everybody with clear measures, applied equally, and to guarantee high standards in both the secular and religious programs." Obama's plan would emphasize using large groups such as the, "Catholic Charities to train smaller organizations that are currently doing good work in the way of applying for and administering government funds."
For some, this all sounds terrific. However, I am a total skeptic on this joining of religious organizations and secular groups while telling both of them that if they decide to accept public funds, they cannot promote their faith or discriminate against any other religion in their community efforts. I have a real problem in understanding how a religious based organization can be seriously expected to become totally "secular" in performing their community service. I believe it's just asking too much of service organizations that were formed on the basis of a specific religious faith to be asked to eliminate their religious thinking process, once they have accepted that they woul perform their services while using public funds.
It must be understood that there was a reason our system was founded on the separation of church and state. The founding fathers knew it wouldn't work then to combine the two, and it's not a good idea now. This is one area in Obama's program proposals that I disagree with and where I feel he is doing this more for political issues as well as his personal desire for trying to have it both ways.
In this area, I think Obama is just being a typical "politician" while looking for election support from faith-based organizations.
Author's note:
Based on the latest subjects discussed by America's political mass media coverage, I believe I have addressed the main topics of discussion regarding Obama and my past two articles on McCain's many election issues. In reviewing them today, Obama is still way ahead of McCain in possibly having "change you can believe in" versus McCain's "business and politics as usual".
It's getting closer to the time for you to have to decide for yourselves.
0 comments:
Post a Comment