Obama calls Carolina Senate recruit
Here’s a clear sign that the White House is picking favorites in the North Carolina Senate primary, where three Democrats are running to challenge Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.).
President Obama called Iraq war veteran Cal Cunningham this week to chat about the campaign, according to the Raleigh News and Observer's Rob Christensen:
Cunningham received a phone call this week from President Barack Obama, another indication that he is seen in Washington as the Democratic Party's strongest potential challenger to Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr.
Cunningham, a former state senator from Lexington, said he talked with Obama about his Senate campaign, although he said he didn't feel comfortable talking about the details of their conversation, reports Rob Christensen.
"I urged the president to (help) pass health care and move immediately on to a jobs bill that would help put North Carolinians back to work," Cunningham said.
The call from Obama is likely to be seen as bit of political symbolism. Cunningham was recruited into the Senate race by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The committee has promised to use its connections to help open doors to financial donors and has been providing him advice as he seeks to win the May Democratic primary.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Happy Bill of Rights Day!...and more!
Happy Bill of Rights Day Everyone! I hope we all will remember those Rights as well as the people that gave their lives so that we can enjoy them!
And...on that note...
Since 2003, more than 4300 men and women have given their lives supposedly liberating the Iraqi people from oppression and tyranny. How do they repay us? They give huge, lucrative oil contracts to Russia and China!
This really comes as no surprise to me though...without "REAL" Change in Washington, the United States with be nothing more than a Chinese province by proxy in the next 10 years anyway!
http://4oil.blogspot.com/2009/12/russia-china-big-winners-in-iraq-oil.html
And...on that note...
Since 2003, more than 4300 men and women have given their lives supposedly liberating the Iraqi people from oppression and tyranny. How do they repay us? They give huge, lucrative oil contracts to Russia and China!
This really comes as no surprise to me though...without "REAL" Change in Washington, the United States with be nothing more than a Chinese province by proxy in the next 10 years anyway!
http://4oil.blogspot.com/2009/12/russia-china-big-winners-in-iraq-oil.html
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Senator Webb's (D-Va) comments concerning President Obama's plan for Afghanistan.
Hello All! For those who may not know, Senator James Webb is a decorated Marine Corps/Vietnam War veteran, lawyer, former Secretary of the Navy, and award winning author and journalist. Below is his op-ed piece from the Washington Times.
Senator Webb serves on both the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Committee on Armed Services, where he is chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. In committee hearings last week, Senator Webb questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen on details of the new policy. This week, he will similarly have the opportunity to question General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command; Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan; and General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of United States Forces in Afghanistan.
A plan in need of clarity
By Senator Jim Webb
December 4, 2009
I have great regard for the careful process the Obama administration employed in its efforts to define a new approach for the long-standing military commitment inAfghanistan and to put an operational framework in place for our responsible withdrawal. I intend, nevertheless, to continue to call on the administration to clarify to the American public and Congress how it defines success and how we reach an end point.
Since early 2009, I have said repeatedly that the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan must proceed based on four considerations: (1) the fragility of the Afghan government; (2) whether building a national army of considerable scale is achievable; (3) whether an increased U.S. military presence will ultimately have a positive effect in the country, or whether we will be seen as an occupying force; and (4) the linkage of events in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the coming weeks I intend to examine the administration's plan to see how it addresses these criteria and how it will affect our troops.
Since the president's address Tuesday, there has been much discussion of the date that the United States will begin to draw down military forces and transfer security responsibility. Just as important is a focus on creating the conditions to enable this transfer of responsibility. The administration has not defined them with sufficient clarity. Our strategy is sound only if framed with clearly defined and attainable goals, an understandable end point and a regional perspective. We must also avoid the inherent risks of allowing our success in Afghanistan to be defined by events that are largely beyond our control.
When U.S. troops entered Afghanistan in 2001, no true central government had existed in that country since 1979. The agreements reached in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001 led to a new constitution, an interim government and the national election of 2004. The agreements also gave considerable power to a central government in a country that is very disparate and historically far removed from the concept of central governance. The result today is a weak, fragile government inKabul whose power on paper is far greater than in reality. It is plagued by a lack of capacity and rampant corruption. Many observers say that power needs to be devolved to a more decentralized form of governance consistent with tribal realities to achieve the Afghan government's long-term viability.
We are ramping up deployment to about 100,000 troops, along with tens of thousands of American contractors and civilians, to implement a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. This greatly enlarged presence runs the risk, well rooted in Afghanistan's history of resisting foreign influence, that the United States will be perceived as an occupying force instead of a presence seeking to assist Afghans in improving their stability and development.
Another key question that remains to be answered is: How do we define our enemy in Afghanistan? When we talk about the Taliban, we interchange terms that aren't particularly interchangeable. Three different types of actors are associated with the Taliban. First came those in a vicious government that the United States assisted in removing. Second, there is an ideologically charged group that operates principally in Pakistan, associated with the forces of international terrorism. Third, we have a separate group, presumably growing with the greatest speed, that is viewed by many Afghans as something of a regional militia defending local interests and that doesn't particularly want to threaten U.S. interests outside Afghanistan.
I have said consistently that countering international terrorism requires highly maneuverable forces able to strike an intrinsically mobile enemy. The departure of al-Qaeda from Iraq and, in large measure, from Afghanistan demonstrates why more maneuverable U.S. forces are to be favored against mobile international terrorist movements. In each instance, al-Qaeda relocated to other areas, including Pakistan and the Horn of Africa. Our military must retain the same maneuverability.
On the personnel front, our active-duty military has been deployed repeatedly for combat operations since 2001. Guard and reserve components also have deployed at levels not envisioned when the all-volunteer force was introduced. We are in uncharted territory in terms of the long-term effects these deployments are having on the well-being of our men and women in uniform, especially the Army and Marine Corps. I introduced dwell-time legislation nearly three years ago to ensure that we achieved a better balance in deployment cycles with a minimum interval before follow-on deployments. The new commitment of some 30,000 U.S. troops will put additional strains on our forces and their families. I plan to press the administration on this point to ensure that we are more vigilant in safeguarding the welfare of our men and women in uniform.
The writer, a Democrat from Virginia who was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is chairman of the subcommittee on personnel.
Senator Webb serves on both the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Committee on Armed Services, where he is chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee. In committee hearings last week, Senator Webb questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen on details of the new policy. This week, he will similarly have the opportunity to question General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command; Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan; and General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of United States Forces in Afghanistan.
A plan in need of clarity
By Senator Jim Webb
December 4, 2009
I have great regard for the careful process the Obama administration employed in its efforts to define a new approach for the long-standing military commitment inAfghanistan and to put an operational framework in place for our responsible withdrawal. I intend, nevertheless, to continue to call on the administration to clarify to the American public and Congress how it defines success and how we reach an end point.
Since early 2009, I have said repeatedly that the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan must proceed based on four considerations: (1) the fragility of the Afghan government; (2) whether building a national army of considerable scale is achievable; (3) whether an increased U.S. military presence will ultimately have a positive effect in the country, or whether we will be seen as an occupying force; and (4) the linkage of events in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the coming weeks I intend to examine the administration's plan to see how it addresses these criteria and how it will affect our troops.
Since the president's address Tuesday, there has been much discussion of the date that the United States will begin to draw down military forces and transfer security responsibility. Just as important is a focus on creating the conditions to enable this transfer of responsibility. The administration has not defined them with sufficient clarity. Our strategy is sound only if framed with clearly defined and attainable goals, an understandable end point and a regional perspective. We must also avoid the inherent risks of allowing our success in Afghanistan to be defined by events that are largely beyond our control.
When U.S. troops entered Afghanistan in 2001, no true central government had existed in that country since 1979. The agreements reached in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001 led to a new constitution, an interim government and the national election of 2004. The agreements also gave considerable power to a central government in a country that is very disparate and historically far removed from the concept of central governance. The result today is a weak, fragile government inKabul whose power on paper is far greater than in reality. It is plagued by a lack of capacity and rampant corruption. Many observers say that power needs to be devolved to a more decentralized form of governance consistent with tribal realities to achieve the Afghan government's long-term viability.
We are ramping up deployment to about 100,000 troops, along with tens of thousands of American contractors and civilians, to implement a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. This greatly enlarged presence runs the risk, well rooted in Afghanistan's history of resisting foreign influence, that the United States will be perceived as an occupying force instead of a presence seeking to assist Afghans in improving their stability and development.
Another key question that remains to be answered is: How do we define our enemy in Afghanistan? When we talk about the Taliban, we interchange terms that aren't particularly interchangeable. Three different types of actors are associated with the Taliban. First came those in a vicious government that the United States assisted in removing. Second, there is an ideologically charged group that operates principally in Pakistan, associated with the forces of international terrorism. Third, we have a separate group, presumably growing with the greatest speed, that is viewed by many Afghans as something of a regional militia defending local interests and that doesn't particularly want to threaten U.S. interests outside Afghanistan.
I have said consistently that countering international terrorism requires highly maneuverable forces able to strike an intrinsically mobile enemy. The departure of al-Qaeda from Iraq and, in large measure, from Afghanistan demonstrates why more maneuverable U.S. forces are to be favored against mobile international terrorist movements. In each instance, al-Qaeda relocated to other areas, including Pakistan and the Horn of Africa. Our military must retain the same maneuverability.
On the personnel front, our active-duty military has been deployed repeatedly for combat operations since 2001. Guard and reserve components also have deployed at levels not envisioned when the all-volunteer force was introduced. We are in uncharted territory in terms of the long-term effects these deployments are having on the well-being of our men and women in uniform, especially the Army and Marine Corps. I introduced dwell-time legislation nearly three years ago to ensure that we achieved a better balance in deployment cycles with a minimum interval before follow-on deployments. The new commitment of some 30,000 U.S. troops will put additional strains on our forces and their families. I plan to press the administration on this point to ensure that we are more vigilant in safeguarding the welfare of our men and women in uniform.
The writer, a Democrat from Virginia who was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is chairman of the subcommittee on personnel.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Conservative Support for the President's Afghan/Iraq Policy.
President Obama has now announced that the United States will send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The President finally spoke forcefully on the way forward in Afghanistan. His supporters on the left, who have been calling for an immediate pullout of all troops, must have felt like they'd gotten a hard spanking by their big brother.
The President, to his credit, made it unmistakably clear that he considers Afghanistan to be the epicenter of terrorist planning. He also made it clear that as that epicenter of terrorist planning, Afghanistan represents a clear and present danger to the United States of America and all freedom loving nations.
I was impressed with the President's assertion that comparisons of Afghanistan to Vietnam represents a "false reading of history." However he did attempt to placate the anti-war left with a promise to work with the Afghan government so that they could eventually take over its own security. He also made a general promise to start bringing troops home within 18 months.
But, the President correctly pointed out al-Qaeda is a cancer in Afghanistan that threatens us all. You don't deal with cancer by pretending it doesn't exist. It may have taken longer than it should have, but the President deserves credit and our support and respect for coming to the right conclusion.
Republicans concerned about the war on terror have frequently been critical of the President's handling of this national security threat. Now, we owe him our non-partisan support as he takes a clear stand and seeks to give our military the resources they need to push al-Qaeda back to hell.
Mike Huckabee
Veteran Outreach Project....Please send Feedback!!!
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Good afternoon. Thank you so much for taking the time to check out my site and blog. While we're still working on getting things up and running on the site, http://www.aregularguyontheissues.com, I wanted to go ahead and put this out there for everyone. I'm currently working on a political/veterans outreach project in North Carolina. For all my fellow North Carolinians, I would like to know what you thought about the President's speech Wednesday night concerning the withdrawal timeline for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan...Did you agree?...disagree? If you agreed with part of his speech but not all....what's parts did you agree with/disagree with and why? Your feedback will help me get a feel for how North Carolinians feel about our current military and foreign policy. Please feel free to send your feedback to Comments.RGI@gmail.com No worries...your names will remain totally anonymous.
Thanks,
Aaron
Cal Cunningham....NC needs you!!!
P.S. If you didn't see the President's speech, you can view it here, http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-s-afghanistan-plan-4-minutes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)