It was a bright sunny Tuesday morning, I had taken the week off from work because we were bringing the newborn SugarPlum home for the first time. My wife had gone into the office in downtown Atlanta to grab a few things and then were going to get our daughter at noon.
plezWorld saw something on the television about about a plane flying into the World Trade Center in NYC and decided to turn to CNN and see what was going on. I turned on the TV just in time to see the second plane slam into the tower... in disbelief! The imagery of the moment, no, that entire day will forever be etched in my memory.
The most joyous day of my life - bringing home my baby girl - merged with the most horrific day in US history. I remember holding her in my arms that afternoon and into the night wondering what had become of the world, when someone would plot and plan such a diabolical attack. And I remember fighting back the tears while thinking of what a hateful world we had brought my daughter into... I could only pray she would be capable of growing up devoid of the cynicism and hate this day brought us.
It is now a decade later, two wars have run their course, we have a Black President, bin Laden is dead... and my innocent little girl is a pre-teen. She is pretty as a button, lovable, and kind. But we have raised her in a changed world, where every motive is suspect, our freedoms have been abridged, our economy has tanked, and political vitriol has damn near crippled President Obama. This post-9/11 world is vastly different than the one I grew up in. I can only hope we can use this tenth anniversary of 9/11 to put this behind us and move on to a kinder, more understanding America.
The debate that almost wasn't came off without a hitch on Friday night. Sen. John McCain had threatened to boycott the debate in favor of staying in Washington, DC until the details of the bailout plan were complete. When Sen. Barack Obama called his bluff and made plans to be in Oxford, Mississippi for the debate, McCain hightailed it down south this afternoon to meet the challenge.
High expectations greeted Barack Obama... would he do better than he had done against the innumerable debates against Sen. Hillary Clinton? would he be able to connect with a general election crowd, rather than the purely Democratic audiences from the primaries? would he be able to succinctly enunciate his views and plans for his presidency? would he be able to command a grasp of foreign affairs, the light-in-the-pants area of his albeit thin resume? would he be able to hold his own against the mix-it-up style of John McCain?
The expectations for John McCain were markedly lower since he had seemingly abandoned his campaign 72 hours ago in favor of "working" on the economy in Washington, DC. Since his strong suit was foreign affairs and the planned discussion at this debate was foreign affairs, he would be "in his element." And it is believed that he is a stronger debater than Obama, so combined with his experience and the relatively low expectations for his appearance, he seemingly had the upper hand.
The debate opened on the global economy and Jim Lehrer (the moderator) seemed perplexed as to how to rev up the energy and get these two guys engaged. There were tepid jabs, but no direct shots. The moderator practically had to beg them to ask questions of one another.
Things warmed up considerably when they went into the area of foreign policy and the War in Iraq. See excerpts of the debate coverage from CNN.com below:
During the first 30 minutes of the debate, the candidates focused on the economy, even though the debate was supposed to be centered on foreign policy.
For a while, it seemed like the debate might not even take place because McCain said he would not show up unless Congress came to an agreement on the government's proposed $700 billion bailout plan.
McCain said Friday that enough progress has been made for him to attend the debate, even though Congress has not made a deal.
Here's a snapshot of what the candidates said.
On government spending:
McCain said he would consider a spending freeze on everything but defense, veterans affairs and entitlement programs in order to cut back on government spending.
Obama disagreed, saying, "The problem is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.
"There are some programs that are very important that are currently underfunded," Obama said.
He agreed that the government needs to cut spending in some areas, but he said other areas, such as early childhood education, need more funding.
McCain repeated his call to veto every bill with earmarks. Watch the candidates spar over earmarks »
Obama said the country "absolutely" needs earmark reform but said, "the fact is, eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we are going to get the middle class back on track."
On the bailout proposal:
Obama said that the United States was facing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
McCain said he was encouraged that Republicans and Democrats were working together to solve the crisis.
Obama refused to be pinned down on whether he would support a $700 billion plan proposed by President Bush's top economic advisers, saying the final details of the proposal were not yet known.
McCain said he hoped to be able to vote for it.
On the likelihood of another terrorist attack:
McCain that another attack on the scale of the September 11 hijackings is "much less likely" now than it was the day after the terrorist attacks.
"America is safer now than it was on 9/11," he said, "But we have a long way to go before we can declare America safe."
Obama agreed that the United States is "safer in some ways" but said the country needed to focus more on issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and restoring America's image in the world.
On relations with Russia:
Obama called for a re-evaluation of the United States' approach to Russia in light of the country's recent military action in the Caucasus.
"You cannot be a 21st-century superpower and act like a 20th-century dictatorship," he said.
McCain accused Obama of responding naively to Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia last month by calling on both sides to exercise restraint.
McCain said he would support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.
On Iran:
McCain said Iranian nuclear weapons would be an "existential threat to the state of Israel" and would encourage other countries in the Middle East to seek nuclear weapons as well.
"We cannot allow another Holocaust," he said.
Obama agreed that the United States "cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran," calling for tougher sanctions from a range of countries including Russia and China.
McCain called for a new "league of democracies" to stand firm against Iran.
On Iraq:
McCain said the next president will have to decide when and how to leave Iraq and what the United States will leave behind.
The Republican candidate said that the war had been badly managed at the beginning but that the United States was now winning, thanks to a "great general and a strategy that succeeded."
"Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq," McCain said.
Obama responded, "That's not true; that's not true."
He blasted McCain as having been wrong about the war at the start, saying McCain had failed to anticipate the uprising against U.S. forces and violence between rival religious groups in the country. Watch Obama tell McCain he was 'wrong' »
"At the time when the war started, you said it was quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were," Obama said, citing the key White House policy justifying the 2003 invasion.
"You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong," he said.
Read the entire CNN.com wrapup of the debate here and here.
Read the debate wrapup in the New York Timeshere and here.
Read the Baltimore Sun article about the Obama-McCain debate here.
Read the Washington Post article about the Obama-McCain debate here.
Read about Chris Rock talking politics on Larry King Livehere.
plez sez: ninety minutes later and if you were an Obama supporter, you probably thought he won, and if you were a mccain supporter, you probably thought he won!
that's how close it was. whatever drew you to Obama as your candidate of choice was on full display this evening... cool, calm, calculated, cerebral, and pragmatic.
if you were impressed with mccain as a candidate, he would not disappoint this evening, as both men stuck to their assigned scripts and delivered. the only real difference was that Obama was far more combative and assertive than he'd been against hillary clinton. and Obama spoke with a certainty and clarity that had not been on display in previous debates during the primary season.
if you are an undecided voter... i cannot see anything tonight that would've swayed your perspective on either candidate, since nothing new was revealed, except Barack Obama has a far greater grasp of foreign affairs than most of the media gives him credit for. but if you are still undecided in late September (after more than 19 months of campaigning), then Obama's display of intelligence and approach to issues won't be a deciding factor in who you'll vote for... your decision will probably lean on something much more basic.
it was technically a draw, which probably did little to change the views of voters around the country.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
it didn't escape the attention of plezWorld that for 90 minutes, John McCain never so much as glanced in Barack Obama's direction... he kept is eyes on either his talking points or the moderator! even when prompted to engage each other by the moderator, mccain refused to look Obama's way.
when they came out and shook hands, mccain couldn't look at Obama. after the debate, their wives came on stage and each couple went to opposite sides of the stage. after waving briefly, the Obama's - the class act that they are - walked hand-in-hand to the other side of the stage and exchanged pleasantries with the mccains. it appears that the mccains could've easily walked off stage without speaking!
this may be a hard fought political battle, but these two guys are colleagues in the US Senate... there is no need to be bitter and rude!
It is widely believed that Osama bin Laden was the mastermind and key architect of the worst terrorist attack on American soil. The seventh anniversary of 9/11 comes around in a month and a half. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on Saturday that there are no U.S. or other foreign military personnel on the hunt for Osama bin Laden in his nation, and none will be allowed in to search for the al-Qaeda leader.
An Associated Press account quotes Qureshi as saying, "Our government's policy is that our troops, paramilitary forces and our regular forces are deployed in sufficient numbers. They are capable of taking action there. And any foreign intrusion would be counterproductive. [Our] people will not accept it. Questions of sovereignty come in."
Nine days after the 9/11 attack, George W. Bushaddressed a joint session of congress, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." He received rousing applause and near unanimous support of the American public by invoking the name of Osama bin Laden as the leader of al-Qaeda. Thus began the Bush's War on Terror...
One year later, the US was planning to invade Iraq, a country where al-Qaeda didn't exist, under the guise of Bush's war on terror. Since that time, Iraq has been thrown into disarray with sectarian violence, it has a sham of a puppet government, al-Qaeda has established itself in Iraq, the Taliban has gained strength in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden's operation is free to operate with impunity on the Afghani-Pakistani border. The one ally within Pakistan who may've assisted with the apprehension of bin Laden - Benazir Bhutto - was assassinated in December 2007.
US-Pakistani relations have been strained of late: US aircraft killed 11 Pakistani soldiers at a border post in June. US officials have said coalition aircraft dropped bombs during a clash with militants. Despite Pakistan's previous statements that it does not allow U.S. forces on its territory, villagers in the border region that is a haven for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters have reported seeing U.S. drones fire missiles at suspected militant targets on several occasions in recent years.
Pakistan officials deny having any knowledge of bin Laden in their country (nudge, nudge, wink, wink!). He has seemingly vanished from the face of the Earth.
Read the entire AP article about Pakistan's refusal to allow US forces into the country here.
Read George W. Bush's address to the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001 here.
plez sez: the us brought sadaam hussein to justice for killing thousands of his own people. but the us can't seem to bring osama bin laden to justice for killing thousands of americans. isn't something wrong with this picture?
while us forces have been making the iraqi oil fields safe for pillaging by american oil companies, we have completely dropped the ball on dealing with the terrorists who brought the death of over 3,000 americans and the destruction of both world trade center towers (well, some think the us government had more to do with the destruction of the world trade center towers than al-qaeda). as Barack Obama has stated so eloquently, we have taken our eye off the ball by invading iraq.
if our military was at full strength, it wouldn't matter that pakistan didn't want us forces to search their countryside for bin laden.
george w. bush's foreign policy is a dismal failure: he has done nothing to raise the united states' standing among the world economy, the war on terror is a failure, the war in iraq is an illegal invasion based on lies, and we are no safer than the day that bush took office.
"My theme has been throughout this campaign that I'm the one with the experience, the knowledge and the judgment. So perhaps it may serve to enhance those credentials to make people understand that I've been to Pakistan, I know (President Pervez) Musharraf, I can pick up the phone and call him. I knew Benazir Bhutto." - Senator John McCain, presumptive Republican presidential nominee, on December 27, 2007 after hearing that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan.
Senator McCain obviously forgot that he made this statement last December while in the hunt for his party's nomination, as he attempted to distance himself from a major gaffe by one of his chief advisers, Charlie Black, on yesterday. Black inadvertently spoke about the McCain strategy to take advantage of a terrorist attack, if one were to occur during this election cycle.
Charlie Black said that Benazir Bhutto’s killing was an “unfortunate event.” But, he argued, McCain’s “knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief." Asked if McCain would stand to benefit from a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied, “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.”
What follows is a statement from the Obama campaign:
“Barack Obama welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe. The fact that John McCain’s top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a ‘big advantage’ for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al Qaeda,”
Read the entire New York Times article that calls John McCain's reaction to Charlie Black's comment in to question here.
Read the entire New Republic article on the McCain Camp comments here.
plez sez: okay... we're dealing with two issues here: (1) john mccain is older than ronald reagan when he first ran: i'm in my mid-forties and i tend to forget things or my mind makes up new details around past events... i can only imagine what it would be like to be 72-years old and trying to remember every damn thing i've uttered on a daily basis over the past 12 months while engaged in a vigorous campaign to be president of the united states. in addition to being more than a little forgetful, mccain also has the uncanny ability to flip-flop his position while he's forgetting what he said; in my defense, i'm pretty consistent in my stances, so if i was for something last year, i'm more than likely still for it today. mccain has obviously forgotten that one of his campaign strategies was to take FULL ADVANTAGE of any terrorist activity to prove his chops as the next commander-in-chief (as he uttered after the bhutto assassination).
(2) a gaffe is when you inadvertently tell the truth: a show of hands here, who doesn't think that the mccain campaign would milk a terrorist attack on the united states for all that it was worth and claim that he is imminently more qualified than Barack Obama to handle any such event if he were in the white house? easier question: who wouldn't put it past the bush administration and the republicans to manufacture a terrorist attack in let's say mid-october (i.e. an october surprise) to scare the electorate into voting for the 72-year old mccain over the relatively inexperienced Barack Obama?
nothing surprises plezWorld these days and just to think we have about five months left before we get to elect our new president. i keep in mind that john mccain has only recently attempted to distance himself from george w. bush and his failed foreign policies: osama bin laden hasn't been captured in seven years after 9/11, the taliban is still alive and kicking in afghanistan, al-qaeda has grown in strength since the invasion of iraq, the basis to attack iraq was based on lies, etc. mccain speaks of years of experience, i argue that cheney & rumsfeld & powell had more experience than mccain, and we see the mess they got us into. and based on mccain's campaign staffer comments, it is obvious that mccain plans to capitalize on striking terroristic fear into the hearts of americans, similar to the tactics used by bush when he ran for reelection in 2004!
i'm voting for Barack Obama... let's give change a chance!
Thirty-six years ago, Saddam Hussein rose to power in Iraq. From his lofty perch, he nationalized the Iraqi oil fields and kicked all of the oil companies out of the country.
Since that time, Iraq has gone to war with Iran (that lasted about 10 years). He tried to invade Kuwait and was repelled by US forces. And then on September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by Al-Qaeda terrorists at the behest of Osama bin Laden (who was holed up in Afghanistan), and a few years later we declared war on Iraq. The US has been at "war" with Iraq for over five years, even though, Saddam Hussein was captured and hanged less than a year into the conflict.
Well, the New York Times reports that Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields. Only 4,000 US troop deaths into the War in Iraq and the greedy US oil companies are slithering into the Iraq for what they've been waiting for these long five years. The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.
Read the entire New York Times article on how US oil companies are chomping at the bit to do business in Iraq here.
plez sez: cajones... mucho gusto cajones
i guess someone has to refurbish the crumbling iraqi oil field infrastructure. someone has to get them on the right footing. it may as well be companies from the country that liberated iraq, right?
and dick cheney and those americans who advise the iraqi oil ministry had nothing to do with the awarding of no-bid contracts to the biggest and greediest oil companies in the us!
do you think this will increase the supply of crude oil enough to drop the price of gasoline back to $2 a gallon? me neither!
In a nationally televised speech last night, President Bush presented his "plan" for the war in Iraq. You'll notice that he didn't present a plan to END the war in Iraq, his plan basically called for an escalation of violence (with warlike casualties) in an effort to secure Baghdad. By his way of thinking, if we secure Baghdad, then by caveat, the rest of Iraq will just fall into place for his puppet (Nouri al-Maliki)
Excerpts of Bush's 01/10/2007 speech:
"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work."
"This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.
The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."
"This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible."
"We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. ...and Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq."
"In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice."
You can read the entire transcript of his speech here.
plez sez: At the end of Bush's speech, I could only wonder how much crack they had been smoking in the War Room when they came up with this plan! The obligatory Democratic responders and ex-military talking heads on CNN and PBS were basically wondering the same thing. They all talked about how an extra 20,000 troops would be like "spitting in the wind" to fight a fire and this plan will have a minimal effect on driving down the number of incidents of violence in Baghdad.
There were a few other things in his speech (or missing from the speech) that raised that raised my ire:
Bush never talked about WHO we are supposed to be over there fighting, because the "insurgents" are a fluid group of Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, Al Qaeda terrorists with no formal structure. Our troops are in a quagmire of a civil ware without a defined enemy to focus upon.
The President did admit that only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence. So why do we need to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq for a problem that our military cannot solve?
Bush will never admit that even though Saddam Hussein was a murderous bully, he did keep the Iraqis in check! With the state that Iraq finds itself in these days, we'll NEVER be able to withdraw our troops or Iraq will fall into anarchy. Those 20,000 troops along with the 150,000 already there are in a Korea-like situation (we've been in South Korea for over 50 years).
There is no timetable for withdrawal because we will not be able to leave... see my previous comment. I don't think we should have INVADED Iraq, but now that we are there, I see no possibility of an exit strategy. Bush's speech was his maintenance plan while we continue to prop up their paper government (remember what happened when the Shah of Iran cut our puppet strings?).
George Bush has never been honest with the American people: (1) he invaded Iraq on a false premise (and I believe he knew it was a false premise of WMDs when we started the bombing), (2) he won't admit that he had a personal vendetta against the leader of a sovereign nation and had him removed from power (remember, Saddam Hussein tried to snuff out Bush 41 and Bush 43 vowed that he would avenge the failed attack), (3) he let his "fat cat" friends profit from the war (start with Halliburton and work down from there), (4) he said we were winning (and had won) the war when we weren't even close, (5) he has allowed a formerly stable nation to wallow in instability for over 3 years, (6) he has had a blank check (drafted by a Republican Congress) to be a warmonger with no tangible results, (7) he hasn't even had a whiff of Osama Bin Laden since the World Trade Center crumbled on September 11, 2001 (question: why didn't we bomb and invade Afghanistan for harboring Bin Laden?), and at last count, (8) he has sent over 3,000 Americans to die for NOTHING!
If the Democrats want to find something to do for their second 100 hours on the job, they need to launch a thorough investigation on this Mess in Iraq and begin impeachment proceedings if what I allege is true.
~ husband ~ father ~ son ~ brother ~ mentor ~ subdivision dweller ~ northern by birth ~ southern by choice ~ raised a black baptist, now guided by the spiritual ~ raised a kennedy democrat, now politically dead center (moderate) ~ raised in a Cadillac Coupe Deville, now hooked on an SUV ~ college educated and still a student of life ~ wild college frat boy and now a settled alumnus ~ intellectual yet fun-loving geek ~ technical and leading edge ~ corporate cog ~ consultant ~ college football saturday devotee ~ and a ramblin' gamblin' helluva engineer (GO JACKETS!) ~
This is my personal blog. The views expressed on these pages are mine; and they are in no way associated with the views of my employer, family, friends, or associates.
Posts
