Yesterday the left-wing media flew into a feeding frenzy at the idea that John McCain, the self-appointed authority on all things military, "misspoke." In his numerous statements, Mr. McCain said that "We continue to be concerned about Iranian taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
While McCain rescinded his comments, saying that he meant that Iran is training extremists, not necessarily al Qaeda, news outlets such as the New York Times and TIME Magazine continue to jump on his apparent confusion of Sunni versus Shiite terrorism saying "The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group."
Although Iran has not yet been linked to the Iraqi Al Qaeda cells, it is not because one is Shiite while the other is Sunni. Iran is a known sponsor of HAMAS, the Sunni terrorist group that operates in the West Bank and Gaza and has connections to Al Qaeda. Sudan, a sponsor of the Sunni Al Qaeda, is known to sponsor the Shiite Hezbollah. In fact, in April 2007, Reuters reported that "Iranian intelligence forces are providing support to Sunni insurgents in Iraq, in addition to Shi'ites, to destabilize the country and tie U.S. forces down."
Admittedly, it is disturbing that McCain didn't immediately realize his error in stating an unverifiable idea. However, his idea is not far-out. Iran, like other sponsors of terror, tends not to care so much about who helps it achieve its horrible ends.
In an election where so much is at stake shouldn't our journalists be focussed on the issues instead of inadvertent slips-of-the-tongue?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
McCain in the Lead
From today's Reuters/Zogby poll:
The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.
McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.
Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent.
Read the full story here
The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.
McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.
Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent.
Read the full story here
Monday, March 17, 2008
Someone Get Me a Map!
This puzzle of political double talk and confusing campaign "he said, she saids" has created a labyrinth so impenetrable that it is no wonder only 19% of Americans are satisfied with the direction of our country. Today, Hillary Clinton argued that she is the only candidate that will end the Iraq war. She rightly points out that former Obama policy adviser Samantha Powers remarked in a BBC interview that "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator" thus further demonstrating the Obama camp's continued pattern of double speak on the campaign trail. (One must wonder in the light of three nearly simultaneous stories revealing that Obama's advisers and mentors do not share his proclaimed views - withdrawal from NAFTA, racial inclusion, and withdrawal from Iraq - if Mr. Obama is not really another politician vying for the most coveted trophy in American politics.)
Yet, Mrs. Clinton is not above this mantra, this continued theme, not of renewed hope and "change" but of talking down to the American people and to quote a one time presidential hopeful, of "playing on our fears." Although Clinton claims she will immediately withdraw troops from Iraq, she continues to straddle the fence. While she claims that she will "within 60 days of my taking office" begin to withdraw, she also has proclaimed a desire to leave special forces troops in the area, an idea that according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D- Minn.) "people are practical about." In the same breath however, Clinton claims that McCain has declared that he will leave troops in Iraq for another 100 years, not noting that McCain was in fact also referring to special forces troops who would be used in much the same capacity as Clinton wants - to "engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq."
While the rhetoric on Iraq has reached its peak, the action seems to be one sided. While the Democratic contestants are arguing about what they will or won't do, only one candidate has actually taken the initiative to go visit Iraq and view the situation with his own eyes. As CNN recently reported:
At the present time, only John McCain's actions really seem to match his words.
Yet, Mrs. Clinton is not above this mantra, this continued theme, not of renewed hope and "change" but of talking down to the American people and to quote a one time presidential hopeful, of "playing on our fears." Although Clinton claims she will immediately withdraw troops from Iraq, she continues to straddle the fence. While she claims that she will "within 60 days of my taking office" begin to withdraw, she also has proclaimed a desire to leave special forces troops in the area, an idea that according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D- Minn.) "people are practical about." In the same breath however, Clinton claims that McCain has declared that he will leave troops in Iraq for another 100 years, not noting that McCain was in fact also referring to special forces troops who would be used in much the same capacity as Clinton wants - to "engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq."
While the rhetoric on Iraq has reached its peak, the action seems to be one sided. While the Democratic contestants are arguing about what they will or won't do, only one candidate has actually taken the initiative to go visit Iraq and view the situation with his own eyes. As CNN recently reported:
McCain, who was in Iraq on Monday on a congressional trip, told CNN's John King that Clinton "obviously does not understand nor appreciate the progress that has been made on the ground. She told Gen. [David] Petraeus last year when he testified that she would have to suspend disbelief in order to believe that the surge is working. Well, the surge is working.
"So I just think what that means is al Qaeda wins. They tell the world that. And we fight here again and around the Middle East. And their dedication is to follow us home. All I can say is that this will be a big issue in the election as we approach November because at least a growing number of Americans, though still frustrated and understandably so, believe that this strategy has succeeded," he added.At the present time, only John McCain's actions really seem to match his words.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Hear the Argument, See the Arguer
"He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged." Those are the words of Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual leader. I'm just wondering: when did a guy who makes nearly one million dollars annually become "not rich?" Watch the video here of Reverend Wright's outlandish statements calling Hillary "not white enough."
Although posting these videos may come across as simply political "mudslinging," it is important to note that these statements are coming from a man who is admired and respected by one of the contenders for the Presidential nomination. The fact is that while Obama may call Wright's statements "inflammatory at times" these statements are at the core of Wright's message to his followers.
We cannot ignore the connections of the Obama campaign to people such as Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright. We can not ignore the fact that Barack's wife publicly said that she has never been proud of America (or rather, now that her husband's political aspirations are being realized, she is "for the fist time in my adult life...proud of my country"). All this comes from the candidate who promises "change." Change for what? If it is to spread a message of America's failing's and wrongdoings, then this is change our country can do without. I am not advocating that we ignore our mistakes, I'm simply saying that the mistakes of this country are not what the country is about. Stop campaigning on a message of putting America in "time out" and start instilling home for the future.
While Obama himself has steered clear of making inflammatory remarks, we cannot ignore his past relationships with those less politically tactful than himself.
(Video courtesy of jca325 on YouTube)
Although posting these videos may come across as simply political "mudslinging," it is important to note that these statements are coming from a man who is admired and respected by one of the contenders for the Presidential nomination. The fact is that while Obama may call Wright's statements "inflammatory at times" these statements are at the core of Wright's message to his followers.
We cannot ignore the connections of the Obama campaign to people such as Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright. We can not ignore the fact that Barack's wife publicly said that she has never been proud of America (or rather, now that her husband's political aspirations are being realized, she is "for the fist time in my adult life...proud of my country"). All this comes from the candidate who promises "change." Change for what? If it is to spread a message of America's failing's and wrongdoings, then this is change our country can do without. I am not advocating that we ignore our mistakes, I'm simply saying that the mistakes of this country are not what the country is about. Stop campaigning on a message of putting America in "time out" and start instilling home for the future.
While Obama himself has steered clear of making inflammatory remarks, we cannot ignore his past relationships with those less politically tactful than himself.
(Video courtesy of jca325 on YouTube)
Monday, March 10, 2008
Absolute Power...
As the old aphorism goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Which is why we don't give our public representatives absolute power. The founding fathers, in their wisdom and foresight, created a system of checks and balances; they created the ability for a public official to be impeached, and they created a system that would enable the citizen to "oversee" their representative's actions.
Today the New York Times reported a story concerning New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, in which they quoted him as describing his behavior as "a personal matter." In his next sentence though, Mr. Spitzer apoligised "to the public to whom I promised better."
The distinction between these two statements is important to recognize. While Spitzer points out what is indeed true: his non-political actions are indeed "personal," they should not in any way be mistaken for "private." As governor of a people - the represantative not only in legislative matters, but in moral and ethical ones as well - Elliot Spitzer's personal actions must be made public.
The same holds true in fact, for any public leader or representative, and it does not matter if the act in question is as "mundane" as supposedly double-speaking about NAFTA or as closely personal as having an affair. It is important that the public continues to notice and to monitor the actions of their leaders, so as - as the Founding Father's wished - these leaders may not come to obtain absolute power. The nation's leaders must recognize and understand that they are being watched and that Republic, Democrat, or Independant, they are not above the law. The only way to ensure that our leaders understand this vital fact, is by constantly pointing ALL theirs misactions.
Sometimes these actions will appear to the public to be merely mistakes - the type of "slip-up" any person might make - and so the public will choose to forget the foley. Yet, there are times when the public will decide that the action under consideration is too great to overlook, and in that case they will decide that pressure must be exerted on their leader to regain control over him or her. It is the ability to do this that is the crucial key in ensuring a democratic republic that is America, and it is this element of "public review" that despite its critics, must be upheld and protected.
Today the New York Times reported a story concerning New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, in which they quoted him as describing his behavior as "a personal matter." In his next sentence though, Mr. Spitzer apoligised "to the public to whom I promised better."
The distinction between these two statements is important to recognize. While Spitzer points out what is indeed true: his non-political actions are indeed "personal," they should not in any way be mistaken for "private." As governor of a people - the represantative not only in legislative matters, but in moral and ethical ones as well - Elliot Spitzer's personal actions must be made public.
The same holds true in fact, for any public leader or representative, and it does not matter if the act in question is as "mundane" as supposedly double-speaking about NAFTA or as closely personal as having an affair. It is important that the public continues to notice and to monitor the actions of their leaders, so as - as the Founding Father's wished - these leaders may not come to obtain absolute power. The nation's leaders must recognize and understand that they are being watched and that Republic, Democrat, or Independant, they are not above the law. The only way to ensure that our leaders understand this vital fact, is by constantly pointing ALL theirs misactions.
Sometimes these actions will appear to the public to be merely mistakes - the type of "slip-up" any person might make - and so the public will choose to forget the foley. Yet, there are times when the public will decide that the action under consideration is too great to overlook, and in that case they will decide that pressure must be exerted on their leader to regain control over him or her. It is the ability to do this that is the crucial key in ensuring a democratic republic that is America, and it is this element of "public review" that despite its critics, must be upheld and protected.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Our Prayers Are With You
Our hearts and prayers are with Yeshiva Merkaz Harav as well as the families and friends of those who are there. Full story and constant coverage as well as contact information at the Jerusalem Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)