I never liked this term no matter which side promotes it. It involves legislators compromising their principles. I contend that they aren't elected to "work across the aisle" but to promote and act on those principles on which they campaigned and for which they were elected.
Usually the minority party promotes it. Consider the current speaker's comments prior to her party regaining control of Congress in 2006.
"[I would like] to come as close as you can in the political reality to a bipartisan management of the House"
When the party in the minority assumes the majority though, it's fun listening to them change their tone. Consider the current speaker's recent comments.
"We also have the responsibility, if we can't find that common ground, to stand our ground on principles. If we can't find a bipartisan way to do it, we are not going to say, 'Well, if it is not bipartisan, we are not going to do it.' We are going to do what we believe."
This is a welcome comment that I hope the GOP issues when they eventually assume the majority in the cycles of politics. Her party has the majority duly elected by the people, so I would expect them to push their agenda unless in the midst of that elction cycle their constituents strongly petition them otherwise. Each member of that majority must decide how much they will compromise their principles versus how much they desire re-election.
The question before each politician is this: "How many people voted for me to be bipartisan and work together and how many voted for me to advance my principles which will probably involve no bipartisanship?"
Friday, January 29, 2010
KSM's Rights
The POTUS has decided to at least consider moving the murder trial of KSM et al out of Manhattan. If KSM et al have the full rights of a citizen, then shouldn't their trial be held in Manhattan? The beginning of the 6th amendment to the Constitution reads...
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
In order to have a jury of the district hear and consider the facts of a trial and render a decision, shouldn't it be relatively convenient for them to attend the trial? The district where the crime took place is Manhattan; therefore the trial should take place in Manhattan. (There is precedent for moving such a high profile case though; Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted in Denver, CO despite committing his heinous crime in OKC.) NY state and city officials want it somewhere else due to security and cost concerns. Although Mayor Bloomberg initially favored the venue, an estimated annual security cost of $200 million must have changed his mind. I can't blame him. They are already in the hole.
The DOJ seemed to be standing their ground on the choice of venue despite the howls from Manhattan and New York citizens, members of Congress outside of NY and other people across the fruited plain. What or who changed their mind or better yet why? If this is the right thing to do, to ensure that their Constitutional rights are preserved, then why backslide? Justice is blind...or it should be. The DOJ's decision to conduct the trial in Manhattan seemed to have been made independent of the POTUS, but he supported it. Now he seems to be leaning on them to move it. Did enough of the NY political machine howl after watching the electorate rise up in both the polls and in recent elections?
It appears to be just politics as usual. At least there's some "hope" that the mood of the public can change a bad idea into a not-so-bad idea. Let me suggest a better idea. How about using the military tribunal system that Congress has established and oversees, and that many of whom are now recommending, to try and detain, or release, KSM et al along with all other enemy combatants, who are not citizens, in this continuing war on Islamic terror?
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
In order to have a jury of the district hear and consider the facts of a trial and render a decision, shouldn't it be relatively convenient for them to attend the trial? The district where the crime took place is Manhattan; therefore the trial should take place in Manhattan. (There is precedent for moving such a high profile case though; Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted in Denver, CO despite committing his heinous crime in OKC.) NY state and city officials want it somewhere else due to security and cost concerns. Although Mayor Bloomberg initially favored the venue, an estimated annual security cost of $200 million must have changed his mind. I can't blame him. They are already in the hole.
The DOJ seemed to be standing their ground on the choice of venue despite the howls from Manhattan and New York citizens, members of Congress outside of NY and other people across the fruited plain. What or who changed their mind or better yet why? If this is the right thing to do, to ensure that their Constitutional rights are preserved, then why backslide? Justice is blind...or it should be. The DOJ's decision to conduct the trial in Manhattan seemed to have been made independent of the POTUS, but he supported it. Now he seems to be leaning on them to move it. Did enough of the NY political machine howl after watching the electorate rise up in both the polls and in recent elections?
It appears to be just politics as usual. At least there's some "hope" that the mood of the public can change a bad idea into a not-so-bad idea. Let me suggest a better idea. How about using the military tribunal system that Congress has established and oversees, and that many of whom are now recommending, to try and detain, or release, KSM et al along with all other enemy combatants, who are not citizens, in this continuing war on Islamic terror?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Options for preventing attacks
I am really surprised at the nation's ho-hum reaction to the recent failed attack on Northwest Airline Flight 253 bound for Detroit on Christmas day. It has only been a little over eight years since the last successful attack on the homeland. How soon we have forgotten and become complacent. Everyone should be breathing a collective sigh of relief that this terrorist was incompetent and unsuccessful. So should we rely solely on the ineptitude of terrorists to prevent future attacks?
The recent headline, "Lawmakers' goal: One step ahead", is a no-brainer, but how do you stay one step ahead? The article essentially lays out two approaches being considered by lawmakers. One approach is enhanced airport screening using full-body imaging and/or randomly choosing people to take off shoes, belts, other clothes, open bags, confiscate sharp objects and tubes of liquid, etc. Nearly everyone who has flown since 911 has either seen or experienced one of these methods. (If they're going to take my toothpaste, at least give me a few bucks to replace it.) Now this method isn't being touted as a cure-all, but if it's important now, why didn't TSA continue to employ them, or better yet, why did Congress, in their oversight role, become lax in pressing them to continue employing them? I don't know how a terrorist could carry out his or her plans if this method was fully employed, but I don't want to kill the infidel either. Faith makes people do extraordinary things...for better or worse.
The second approach is not politically correct but is more effective; therefore it will probably not be employed based on the desire of most politicians not to offend anyone...even the sworn enemies of America whom we are formally fighting in two countries. That approach is Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn's desire to "treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant." A spokeswoman for the senator said, "Cornyn thinks the Nigerian suspect shouldn’t have been given a lawyer, read his rights and encouraged to remain silent. Cornyn believes we must put a stop to this harmful trend and afford our intelligence community with the tools they need to secure the American people before we afford would-be-terrorists rights they have not earned." In other words, ask him some questions without a lawyer present which leads to the second part of this approach: information sharing. “It looks like various parts of the government had pieces of information, but they just weren’t put together,” said Texas Republican Congressman Thornberry. Remember the 911 report which chastised the intelligence community for not sharing information? Do we need another successful attack, another report and another bureaucracy?
If he had been a citizen, he would and should have these rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, he is not a citizen, so he has not earned them and should not be afforded them. Now that he has been told to remain silent and has counsel for his defense, he cannot "give up" the names, addresses and phone numbers of the other terrorists in his network, which by now has probably morphed into a new group with the same goal. Instead, he has been charged with attempting to destroy an airplane and for putting an explosive device on the same. Since he is being treated like a criminal instead of an enemy combatant, how about 289 counts of attempted murder? Is the DOJ more concerned with an airplane than with people? Is this justice?
The primary job of the federal government is to protect and defend the citizens of this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. It seems that the politicians would rather take away more of our liberties than defend them.
The recent headline, "Lawmakers' goal: One step ahead", is a no-brainer, but how do you stay one step ahead? The article essentially lays out two approaches being considered by lawmakers. One approach is enhanced airport screening using full-body imaging and/or randomly choosing people to take off shoes, belts, other clothes, open bags, confiscate sharp objects and tubes of liquid, etc. Nearly everyone who has flown since 911 has either seen or experienced one of these methods. (If they're going to take my toothpaste, at least give me a few bucks to replace it.) Now this method isn't being touted as a cure-all, but if it's important now, why didn't TSA continue to employ them, or better yet, why did Congress, in their oversight role, become lax in pressing them to continue employing them? I don't know how a terrorist could carry out his or her plans if this method was fully employed, but I don't want to kill the infidel either. Faith makes people do extraordinary things...for better or worse.
The second approach is not politically correct but is more effective; therefore it will probably not be employed based on the desire of most politicians not to offend anyone...even the sworn enemies of America whom we are formally fighting in two countries. That approach is Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn's desire to "treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant." A spokeswoman for the senator said, "Cornyn thinks the Nigerian suspect shouldn’t have been given a lawyer, read his rights and encouraged to remain silent. Cornyn believes we must put a stop to this harmful trend and afford our intelligence community with the tools they need to secure the American people before we afford would-be-terrorists rights they have not earned." In other words, ask him some questions without a lawyer present which leads to the second part of this approach: information sharing. “It looks like various parts of the government had pieces of information, but they just weren’t put together,” said Texas Republican Congressman Thornberry. Remember the 911 report which chastised the intelligence community for not sharing information? Do we need another successful attack, another report and another bureaucracy?
If he had been a citizen, he would and should have these rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. However, he is not a citizen, so he has not earned them and should not be afforded them. Now that he has been told to remain silent and has counsel for his defense, he cannot "give up" the names, addresses and phone numbers of the other terrorists in his network, which by now has probably morphed into a new group with the same goal. Instead, he has been charged with attempting to destroy an airplane and for putting an explosive device on the same. Since he is being treated like a criminal instead of an enemy combatant, how about 289 counts of attempted murder? Is the DOJ more concerned with an airplane than with people? Is this justice?
The primary job of the federal government is to protect and defend the citizens of this country and its Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. It seems that the politicians would rather take away more of our liberties than defend them.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wolf in sheep's clothing
As documented by Americans for Tax Reform, here are 18 of Senator Reid's tax hikes within H.R. 3590 with bill section and estimated cost. Which ones will cost you in terms of dollars or quality of service?
1) Individual Mandate Tax (Sec. 1501/$8 billion)
2) Employer Mandate Tax (Sec. 1513/$28 billion) - My boss chooses not to insure his employees, so YES.
3) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Sec. 9001/$149.1 billion)
4) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Sec. 9002/Min$)
5) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
6) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
7) FSA Cap (Sec. 9005/$14.6 billion)
8) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting tax (Sec. 9006/$17.1 billion)
9) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Sec. 9007/Min$)
10) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Sec. 9008/$22.2 billion)
11) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Sec. 9009/$19.3 billion)
12) Tax on Health Insurers (Sec. 9010/$60.4 billion)
13) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Sec. 9012/$5.4 billion)
14) Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion) - I've been doing so for years since I pay so much out of pocket, so YES.
15) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Sec. 9014/$0.6 billion)
16) Hike in the Medicare Payroll Tax (Sec. 9015/$53.8 billion) - All workers pay this one, so YES.
17) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Sec. 9016/$0.4 billion) - This is my new insurer, so YES.
18) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Sec. 9017/$5.8 billion)
Taxes also stifle innovation and investment, so eventually all of these will affect us indirectly. Why should I support a bill that takes more money out of my pocket and leaves less for service to others from the heart? The federal government is there in very limited ways to serve us...not the other way around. Recent polls indicate a similar sentiment across the fruited plain. Does that matter to Reid et al?
1) Individual Mandate Tax (Sec. 1501/$8 billion)
2) Employer Mandate Tax (Sec. 1513/$28 billion) - My boss chooses not to insure his employees, so YES.
3) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Sec. 9001/$149.1 billion)
4) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Sec. 9002/Min$)
5) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
6) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
7) FSA Cap (Sec. 9005/$14.6 billion)
8) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting tax (Sec. 9006/$17.1 billion)
9) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Sec. 9007/Min$)
10) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Sec. 9008/$22.2 billion)
11) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Sec. 9009/$19.3 billion)
12) Tax on Health Insurers (Sec. 9010/$60.4 billion)
13) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Sec. 9012/$5.4 billion)
14) Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion) - I've been doing so for years since I pay so much out of pocket, so YES.
15) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Sec. 9014/$0.6 billion)
16) Hike in the Medicare Payroll Tax (Sec. 9015/$53.8 billion) - All workers pay this one, so YES.
17) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Sec. 9016/$0.4 billion) - This is my new insurer, so YES.
18) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Sec. 9017/$5.8 billion)
Taxes also stifle innovation and investment, so eventually all of these will affect us indirectly. Why should I support a bill that takes more money out of my pocket and leaves less for service to others from the heart? The federal government is there in very limited ways to serve us...not the other way around. Recent polls indicate a similar sentiment across the fruited plain. Does that matter to Reid et al?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Stable climate equals peace?
The black portions are a response to an article from the Heritage Foundation criticizing the President's (or teleprompter's) linking climate change and peace in his Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech. The red is my response.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Paying the bills
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
I wish I can say that $40 billion for an Afghanistan troop surge sounds like a lot of money, but after the $700 billion TARP bill last fall, the $787 billion stimulus bill in February, the $400 billion omnibus bill in the spring and the record $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year as well as the looming $800+ billion climate change bill, the looming $800+ billion health care reform bill and the $12+ trillion debt, $40 billion is peanuts. I'm happy to hear that the senator is concerned with increasing the federal debt load, but isn't it a little too late for fiscal responsibility? Does the cliche "stepping over a dime to save a penny" come to mind?
Unemployment is already high; raising their taxes won't help. What concerns me more is that eventually someone will have to pay for all of these new bills and programs, as well as the old existing ones, and the politicians will need more than just these wealthy taxpayers to do it. Will there come a day when we will be forced to turn over all of our wealth to them? If so, we will be slaves of the state.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
I wish I can say that $40 billion for an Afghanistan troop surge sounds like a lot of money, but after the $700 billion TARP bill last fall, the $787 billion stimulus bill in February, the $400 billion omnibus bill in the spring and the record $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year as well as the looming $800+ billion climate change bill, the looming $800+ billion health care reform bill and the $12+ trillion debt, $40 billion is peanuts. I'm happy to hear that the senator is concerned with increasing the federal debt load, but isn't it a little too late for fiscal responsibility? Does the cliche "stepping over a dime to save a penny" come to mind?
Unemployment is already high; raising their taxes won't help. What concerns me more is that eventually someone will have to pay for all of these new bills and programs, as well as the old existing ones, and the politicians will need more than just these wealthy taxpayers to do it. Will there come a day when we will be forced to turn over all of our wealth to them? If so, we will be slaves of the state.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Here's a question for you. Who said in so many words the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it...Ronald Reagan or Hugo Chavez? Would you believe both?
Reagan is credited with saying, "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace."
Bloomberg reported in a November 8, 2009 news article, “Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program.
Were they both right or both wrong? Reagan was not satisfied with the status quo U.S.-Soviet relationship of MAD and detente. He promoted a stronger defensive position that ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall which happened twenty years ago today. Was there an ensuing peace with the Soviet Union? Do we still have it two decades later?
The U.S. agreement with Colombia, giving American troops access to seven Colombian bases is part of an effort to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region,” Robin Holzhauer, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, said by telephone. “We’ve done that with governments who want to have partnerships with us.” Colombia has said the agreement would help combat drug trafficking. Apparently, Chavez isn't buying it.
How much can nations increase their defenses without planting seeds of war in the minds of their neighbors? Will this U.S. agreement with Colombia start another mini-detente with Venezuela?
Reagan is credited with saying, "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace."
Bloomberg reported in a November 8, 2009 news article, “Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program.
Were they both right or both wrong? Reagan was not satisfied with the status quo U.S.-Soviet relationship of MAD and detente. He promoted a stronger defensive position that ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall which happened twenty years ago today. Was there an ensuing peace with the Soviet Union? Do we still have it two decades later?
The U.S. agreement with Colombia, giving American troops access to seven Colombian bases is part of an effort to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region,” Robin Holzhauer, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, said by telephone. “We’ve done that with governments who want to have partnerships with us.” Colombia has said the agreement would help combat drug trafficking. Apparently, Chavez isn't buying it.
How much can nations increase their defenses without planting seeds of war in the minds of their neighbors? Will this U.S. agreement with Colombia start another mini-detente with Venezuela?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)