Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm

Posted By: van on 2009-02-18
In Reply to: Iraq is a Middle Eastern country, Afghanistan NOT..sm - van

"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way," Obama said. "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action."




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Obama did say he would send more troops to Afghanistan while he was campaigning - nm
x
I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
Obama/Afghanistan

Obama stated many, MANY times during his campaign that we need to focus on Afghanistan and that he would send more troops there if he was elected president.  He said it was a mistake to put our resources into Iraq when bin Laden most likely was hiding out in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border somewhere.


It will just transfer to Afghanistan. Obama has already said...
we need more troops in Afghanistan. McCain agrees. Obama also says now that to just pull everyone out of Iraq would not be the thing to do. McCain agrees. So as far as the war goes...we are still going to be fighting in both places as we gradually withdraw...and those withdrawn from Iraq are going to be sent to Afghanistan. That is what they are both saying.
sorry, Obama did not make this decision -
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html

It was decided in 1916!
I agree with Obama's decision to not show them. (sm)

It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists.  I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision.  If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.


I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos.  Last I heard, the complete opposite was true.  Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?


Obama Decision to Move Census to White House...
GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House
A number of Republicans are joining the fight to put the census issue into the political spotlight "before it's too late."

FOXNews.com

Monday, February 09, 2009

1 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
199 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPhotos

The Census Bureau's U.S. Population Clock (Census.gov)

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Stimulus Package Clears Key Procedural Hurdle in Senate
[2009-02-09]
gop sounds off on 'spendulus', gop, gop sounds off on stimulus, stimulus, stimulus passes senate test vote
987 visitors also liked this.
Private Sector Likely to Have Role in Government Bank Bailout Plan
[2009-02-09]
84 visitors also liked this.
Leahy Calls for 'Truth' Panel to Investigate Bush Administration
[2009-02-09]
72 visitors also liked this.
Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate
[2009-02-05]
graham slams obama calls him 'awol on leadership', this process stinks, obama, graham slams obama callshim 'awol on leadership', graham obama 'awol' on stimulus debate
6345 visitors also liked this.
Schumer Calls for Ticketmaster Probe Over Suspicious Springsteen Sales
[2009-02-09]
help find the 'spendulus' pork, help
298 visitors also liked this.
powered by BaynoteUtah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.


The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.


The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

Obama Justice Department Decision Will Allow Non-Citizens to Register to Vote in Georgia

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s denial of preclearance of Georgia’s voter verification process


Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.


“DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia’s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant’s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia’s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.
 
“This process is critical to protecting the integrity of our elections. We have evidence that non-citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals have attempted to register, yet still have questions regarding their citizenship. Further, the Inspector General’s office is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.


“It is important to underscore that not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process. Further, while DOJ argues that the process is somehow discriminatory, the historic voter turnout among Hispanic and African-American voters in the 2008 general elections clearly says otherwise.


“This decision provides a specific example of the inherently illogical and unfair nature of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections. I remain committed to continuing the fight for citizenship verification. In the coming days, I will consider every option available to the state, including the possibility of legal action.”


Background:


As required by law and ordered by federal courts in October 2008, the eligibility of new applicants to register and vote is checked against the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) and Social Security Administration databases to ensure that individuals registering to vote report similar information. If information in these databases does not match information reported on the voter registration form, the applicant is asked to clarify the information. Additionally, if the applicant previously reported to DDS that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, that person is asked by a registrar to provide proof of citizenship.


Prior to the November 2008 General Election, Secretary Handel sent letters to 4,771 voter registration applicants whose records at DDS indicated they were not U.S. citizens, asking them to provide documentation of their citizenship. As of March 2009, 2,148 of these applicants still have chosen not to resolve the question about their U.S. citizenship.


In the November 2008 General Election, county election officials reported that 599 individuals cast a challenged ballot because the voter had previously indicated to DDS that he or she was not a United States citizen and had not resolved their status with county officials at the time of the election. Of those, 369 ballots were accepted because the voter provided documentation of their citizenship after the election; and 230 were rejected because the individual chose not to confirm his or her citizenship status.


On October 10, 2008, activist organizations including the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent Georgia from verifying the eligibility of applicants to register and vote in the November General Election, including whether those individuals were citizens of the United States.


On October 16, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp denied the motion by MALDEF and ACLU; directed the State to continue the verification process; and acknowledged the State’s requirements to verify information under the Help America Vote Act. In his order, Judge Camp stated:


HAVA requires that Defendant Handel match information in the statewide voter registration database with information from the Georgia DDS and the SSA databases “to the extent necessary to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on the applications for voter registration.”


Judge Camp also stated: ...


Obama is calling for keeping troops in Iraq....
for how long he does not say, but that we need MORE in Afghanistan. He does not differ from McCain on that stance. Diplomacy does not work with terrorists (the Taliban were in charge there when bid Laden was parading around in the open after 9-11). Taliban = terrorists. With all due respect...you cannot negotiate with terrorists. Do you remember the horrific images of 9-11? I do. Of the Khobar Towers bombing? I do. The first World Trade Center bombing? I do... the bombing of the marine barracks in beirut? I sure remember those images.
Obama also voted not to fund troops in combat....
It should be apparent to all of us by now that whatever you can find on one politician you can find on another... :)

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/454ad652-5f6d-4cb1-808d-d52a8aa6f4ac.htm
Obama sends more troops to the middle east
Obama sends 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Obama's campaign speech: "As President of the United States I will start withdrawing troops from the middle east within 60 days of taking office".

Why am I surprised?

Everytime he speaks all I can hear is that Thompson Twin song "Lies"

Lies, lies, lies, yeah
Lies, lies, lies, yeah
Lies, lies, lies, yeah
Additional comment on this.

Open the website listed and take a look at ALL THE OFFERS.  It is WONDERFUL.  Some groups are accepting over 1000 people.  It will make you feel like people really do CARE and they are all over the country. 


the reason why I post additional posts
is that I hate loooooong posts. Who wants to read comments that never end?
Got it?
Your post is soooo bitter, I think your face is green, lol.

Are you the Sherlock Holmes of the MTStars forum?

Post something intelligent on the Politics Board and stop 'chasing' posters who have a user name.

May I suggest a username for you?

How about

'Rumpelstilzchen.' LMAO !
You're leaving out some pertinent additional info.
Bush's individual net worth doesn't tell the whole story. That can be deparmentalized and pared down at will to appear rather modest as movers and shakers go. But remember, he is one unit in a family dynasty that includes connections to Saudi royal fortunes and the global military industrial cartel by way of black-op daddy Bush and the infamous Carlyle Group, not to mention the money line on his blue blood mother's side. If the shrub needed 600 million for a sure-fire venture do you think he'd have any trouble coming up with the cash? I think not. It'd be there for him. It always has been before. So it's deceptive to simply point at his tax return - that's what the public is dutifully allowed to see. He's got a nearly limitless financial backing at his disposal, simply by looking at the fact of who he's related to and who they do business with. This is true of many of the ultra-wealthy and particularly ultra-powerful families who consider themselves nation-shapers, and he is definitely a member of one of them. Modest wealth, this is not.


I think you know exactly what I meant by leaving Afghanistan. nm
nm.
That might have worked, if all the terrorists were in Afghanistan. nm
.
CNN video coming out of Afghanistan should

the human cost of war and consequences of our foreign policies.  It is too bad that it took an election campaign to prompt the media to abandon previous censorship of these images.  If we can wage wars and perpetuate policies that bring this kind of unfathomable misery and human suffering down on village civilains(who up until now have carried the monolithic media moniker of "collateral damage") then I believe it is the media's job to report this side of the story and present these images every single time they occur.  


The Vietnam war was the first televised war.  The images that visited our living rooms nightly during the evening newcast compelled Americans with a conscience to oppose that war and call for its end.  Better late than never, I guess, but who knows what kind death and destruction could have been prevented on both sides of the conflict if we had access to these images all along?  


As a postscript observation, the images show us exactly why the tradition why diplomacy matters.  Some of us have been following this side of the story for years now.  For those voters, the war and the absence of EFFECTIVE international diplomacy and alliance building strategies are every bit as focal as the national issue of the economy.   


Grim Appraisal of War in Afghanistan

National Security Team Delivers Grim Appraisal of War in Afghanistan



by: Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post  


Munich - President Obama's national security team gave a dire assessment Sunday of the war in Afghanistan, with one official calling it a challenge "much tougher than Iraq" and others hinting that it could take years to turn around.


    U.S. officials said more troops were urgently needed, both from America and its NATO allies, to counter the increasing strength of the Taliban and warlords opposed to the central government in Kabul. They also said new approaches were needed to untangle an inefficient and conflicting array of civilian-aid programs that have wasted billions of dollars.


    "NATO's future is on the line here," Richard C. Holbrooke, the State Department's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told attendees at an international security conference here. "It's going to be a long, difficult struggle.... In my view, it's going to be much tougher than Iraq."


    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, said the war in Afghanistan "has deteriorated markedly in the past two years" and warned of a "downward spiral of security."


    In addition to more combat troops, Petraeus called for "a surge in civilian capacity" to help rebuild villages, train local police forces, tackle corruption in the Afghan government and reduce the country's thriving opium trade. He also suggested that the odds of success were low, given that foreign military powers have historically met with defeat in Afghanistan.


    "Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires," he said. "We cannot take that history lightly."


    The White House is conducting a strategic review of the war in Afghanistan and says it will unveil the results before NATO holds a 60th-anniversary summit in early April.


    Obama administration officials have said they expect to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total U.S. deployment there to about 66,000. U.S. allies have a combined 32,000 troops in Afghanistan operating under NATO command. NATO officials have pressed European members of the alliance to send more, but few countries have been willing.


    Germany, which has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan, the third most of any country, has questioned the need for more combat forces. Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said more attention should be paid to training Afghan forces and to reconstruction projects.


    "We won't win with military alone," he said at the conference. "There will be no development without security. But without development, we won't have security, either."


    The debate over troops has led to a split within NATO. Jaap DE Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, told conference attendees on Saturday that European members of the alliance needed to do more of the "heavy lifting" in Afghanistan.


    British Defense Secretary John Hutton openly disagreed with his German counterpart, saying the need for more combat troops was the highest priority in Afghanistan. Reconstruction efforts, he said, would fail if the Taliban remains strong.


    "We kid ourselves if we imagine that other contributions right now are of the same value, because they're not," he said. Britain has 8,900 troops in Afghanistan and has said it will probably send more.


    Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his country had made large strides since the U.S.-led military invasion in 2001. He said Afghanistan was home to a thriving free press, 17 universities, and schools for thousands of girls who had been barred by the Taliban from receiving an education. In 2001, he said, Afghanistan had no paved roads; now it has 2,500 miles of new highways.


    U.S. officials said one of the thorniest problems in Afghanistan is its flourishing drug trade, which accounts for an estimated 90 percent of the world's heroin supply. But Karzai, who faces reelection in August, dismissed portrayals of Afghanistan as being run by drug barons.


    "Yes, we produce poppies. Yes, we are insecure because of that," he said. "Are we a 'narco-state,' as we've been called the past few years? No, we are not."


    Karzai said the only way to bring stability to Afghanistan is to eventually negotiate a deal with the Taliban. He also blamed Afghanistan's slow recovery on a lack of coordination among donor countries.


    U.S. and European officials agreed that poor coordination is a major obstacle. "I've never seen anything remotely resembling the mess we've inherited," Holbrooke said.


    But some officials suggested the Afghan government was also responsible.


    Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, cited a fumbled attempt by the United Nations last year to name Paddy Ashdown, a British diplomat, as the overseer of international aid projects in Afghanistan. Ashdown's appointment was torpedoed by Karzai, who saw it as an infringement on Afghanistan's sovereignty.


    Holbrooke replied that the Obama administration would revisit the idea of a development czar with Afghan officials. "The Paddy Ashdown fiasco - and there's no other word for it - really set back the international community."


    Last week, in an open letter to Holbrooke published in the Times of London, Ashdown expressed some sympathy for "poor President Karzai" and said NATO members were chasing different goals in Afghanistan, depending on where their forces operate.


    "The British think Afghanistan is Helmand, the Canadians think it's Kandahar, the Dutch think it's Uruzgan, the Germans think it's the Panjshir valley and the U.S. thinks it's chasing Osama bin Laden." He added, "Someone needs to bash heads together out there and if anyone can, you can."


    Also Sunday, Vice President Biden held talks in Munich with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a day after Biden said the White House wanted to "press the reset button" in its relations with the Kremlin. Ivanov praised Biden's speech, telling reporters that it was "very positive," and adding: "It is obvious the new U.S. administration has a very strong desire to change."


Iraq is a Middle Eastern country, Afghanistan NOT..sm
So Obama said correctly, 'I will bring troops home from the Middle East (Iraq) and send more troops to
Afghanistan.
And that is what he is doing, NO LIES HERE.
They forgot to mention what it was for & Afghanistan was part of the trip-a lot for 1 wk

Indeed, in a February 17 article, the ANSA English Media Service reported (accessed from the Nexis database): "Since arriving in Italy on Saturday, Pelosi has visited the American air base at Aviano in northeast Italy and the American military cemetery in Florence and is due at the NATO Joint Forces Command in Naples Wednesday." Further, a February 19 press release issued by Pelosi's office stated: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional delegation today were briefed by U.S. Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and Commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples. Admiral Fitzgerald and his NATO staff provided information on NATO activities in the Balkans, the ongoing training of Iraqi Security Forces, and operations against pirates off the coast of Somalia." The release further stated: "On Saturday, Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional delegation visited Aviano Air Base where the Speaker pinned the Bronze Star Medal on Technical Sergeant Phoebus Lazaridis for extraordinary service in Afghanistan. The delegation paid their respects to the more than 4,400 American World War II soldiers buried at the Florence American Cemetery on the outskirts of Florence on Sunday."


On February 21, Pelosi released a statement about her trip to Afghanistan, in which she said, "For the past two days, I have led an eight Member House delegation to Afghanistan to visit U.S. troops," during which the delegation "met with U.S. military leaders, and the U.S. Diplomatic team in Kabul to better assess the best course of action to further our national security interests in preparation for the completion of President Obama's strategic review of the Afghanistan policy" and "met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is sending his own advisors to Washington as part of the review process."


Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein
Two different wars based on entirely different premises.........
what decision?? nm
nm
Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm)
x
Not O's decision...(sm)
the supreme court's decision.
Obviously, the right decision. I'm sure you still
Here, the cruel choice would have been to let this poor infant go to term.

Let not your heart be troubled; this child is with God and has been made whole. You'll be reunited one day, I'm sure.
But who and how would that decision be made
From a legal perspective? Say "convenience" abortions are made illegal. I get pregnant and decide I want to have a "convenience" abortion. However, I know these are illegal, so I say the guy raped me. Who gets to pick in which cases abortion is permitted and in which cases it's not?

This is my main concern. You're preaching to the choir on the rest of it, because it used to disgust me when I would type reports and a woman would've had 15 abortions. I do not agree with that at all, and I don't think there are many who do. But, logistically speaking, again, it's either legal or illegal.
Seems like a logical decision

to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost.  There is a lot at stake here.  I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman.


making right decision

This is my first post on the Politics board.  I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R. 


I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org. 


First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home.    I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about... 


I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is.  I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions.  A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman.  On and on and on. 


I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel. 


I'm happy for you and that your decision
Had your family or the father tried to force you to abort, you would have acted accordingly and not listened to them, rather to your inner voice. There is no one-decision-fits-all when answering this question. For that reason, it is only fair that each woman is given the same consideration, to listen to their own gut and act in accordance to what it is telling her. She too will face the outcome, regardless of what the resolution will be and that is as it should be. If you are "tired" of hearing "my body, my right," don't listen. You made your choice. Let others have the same.
I have made my decision -

I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working.  They just do not want to believe.  And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking!  It is ridiculous.


I will no longer try to help people see the truth.  If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway.  I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...


I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!!  The America that other countries envy and want to be!


 


But it isn't your decision to make, is it?
Trot yourself down to DC and make a REAL difference if you feel so strongly about it. It is an attorney's job to represent his client's INTERESTS. Get it? They are in it for the money - just like you work for money. I'm not too worried about his moral compass after witnessing Larry Craig, Foley, Abramoff, Libby......need I go on?
I think he made the right decision...
in not releasing the alleged abuse photos yesterday.

Other than that, I've not been his biggest fan and have to agree with A. Nonymous as to where he's taking this country.
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to
.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?

The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
There was no decision to be made. I was dealing with a
human life and no way would I ever have killed that baby.  We will never agree, so we should probably just agree to disagree on this one.  Have a blessed day!  
Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m
We can all only vote for what we hope (there's that word HOPE again) that we have made the right decision.  I do have FAITH in the American people that all of us will come together and take it in our hands to clean up this country at some point.  Neither candidate nor member of Congress is going to look out for "we the people" until we stand up on our hind legs and DEMAND it.  That is our right under the Constitution of the United States of American and I HOPE we will do it.  We did it on a small scale after 9/11.   I say "small scale" because while everyone came together, it didn't last long and we all went back to business as usual.  If the prediction of us being in such dire straits as we are "warned" about on a daily basis if Obama is elected, I think we ain't seen nothing yet as how the AMERICAN people will band together and DEMAND change.  However, if McCain gets in the White House, as I think he will, we'll continue right on down the garden path just as we have the last 8 years.  AND it won't surprise me if before this election is done  Bush declares martial law and then we are for sure in a fine fix.  Use your noggins for a change instead of just trying to get McCain elected, we ain't rid of George W. Bush YET.
And if you read the previous decision on this
the judge raled on and on for pages about Berg and frivolous law suits.
Could be, but it's their decision to make, not yours, not the govt
x
I agree with O's decision. Showing this
awful tortures, yes, they were very awful, might endanger the American soldiers, especially if they get caught and might be exposed to the 'same' tortures.
I commend you on a courageous decision
It doesn't sound like it was an easy decision for you to make. But sounds like you did what was right.
you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm
nm
War is a Partisan Decision (and more on amnesty for terrorists)

Now here's an honest Republican.  Very refreshing!






URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4781865,00.html
Duncan: War is a partisan decision


Knox Republican opposed successful GOP bill aimed at testing Democrats




WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.

I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.

Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.

In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.

The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.

Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.

Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.

Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.

Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.

Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.

Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.

Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.

But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.


Have you been watching the convention and does this help you in your voting decision

Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far?  I watched it last night.  Lots of commentaries that were a little boring.  I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else.  Loved the tribute to Kennedy.  His health condition is tragic.  He's done so much good while in the senate.  Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person.  She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised.  She knows the struggles we Americans face every day.  I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.


On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention.  I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is.  I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.


Does the convention help you in your choice of who you will vote for.


It is a fair question. The decision will have to be made during the next...
President's administration. All I asked is, would you support him? Why are you afraid to answer?
I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one...
As far as the fairness of evaluating a nominee who is a lawyer based on the argument that they advocated for a client or who they represented and the standard it sets for future nominees, I’m a big believer in reciprocity. If Obama ever opposed or criticized any of then President Bush’s nominees or any other President’s nominees because of who they represented or the arguments they made on their client’s behalf, then what’s good for the goose. . .
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?

JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
Typical, let someone make a decision in a free country..
to support the person he believes is best and his party turns on him like he is a traitor. How can you call yourself Democrats with a straight face?

I am raising my hand...I certainly give a flying frito if someone wants to send this country down the road to a Marxist government. How is that working for Cuba? For Venezuela?


Thank God our troops

Okay...so you are okay with troops in ...
Afghanistan...just not in Iraq...?