Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The D's debate on 5..... more war after that

I hope some of you caught last night's love in on Channel 5. Nothing really seperated them from each other in answering the questions by the long winded Harding, one question from Mr. Holmes to AG Coakley about question 2 and her stance on it, was very revealing. Her typical "reefer madness" response was so out of touch with our state's voter approved ballot question of last year, one (even her blind supporters) would have to wonder what else she would stand against, based on no facts and her own foolish bias. The drug war IS coming to an end in this country and it IS coming from the top.. down. Like many of the needed reforms in this country that the president and his cabinet are faced with now, most intelligent voters understand that the drug war has not produced any positive results over the decades other than increasing our prison population.

And just a few minutes later, President Obama outlines his plan for more troops in Afghanistan. 30 billion a year, for the next three years, which is a part of the total war expenses of 90 BILLION a year we are spending now with both wars running. For me, hearing Obama use the very same worn out and questionable Bush and Cheeny excuses why we must be there and for how long just boils my blood. The money we will spend on building... not rebuilding as we are so famous for, after we destroy a country, is beyond my comprehension, with so many threats to our own survival here in the States to deal with.

The military complex and all it's suppliers will be happy over his decision, but as the body count climbs, this year and the next few, I have to wonder, how many parents, wives, children and friends of those lost in a place that even God wouldn't vacation at, with NO assets what so ever, that anyone wants, except poppi, will think it was worth the price. Damm the SOB's who first got us into this mess to begin with.

13 Comments:

At December 2, 2009 at 11:42 AM , Blogger Edward said...

Very, very, very true statements here about the war. I just do not see how we can think this is a good idea, and I was shocked at President Obama using the same fear tactics used by Bush to get us into this mess in the first place. I must say, last nights speah truly changed my opinion of this president, and not in a good way.

 
At December 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM , Blogger Anderson said...

Coakley is a wise woman, just keeping her mouth shut and letting the others hang themselves with ropes of their own making. But I agree she messed up on the question about ballot question 2 last night. When Holmes asked her if she had any facts or proof to back up her stated concerns about pot being an issue with impaired drivers, she had to admit she did not because none exists. I hope people saw that for what it was, and admission that her political stands are not based on facts at all, but based on her own ideas. Is that really something we want in a senator?

 
At December 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM , Blogger Help said...

I watched the debate last night with my mind already made up about who I was going to vote for, and that was not a choice based on someone being a good choice, but more on who was the best of all the options. By the end of the debate, my vote had gone to someone else. You are right Jim, it is all the same old retoric from the dems, but in one case, at least for me, there was enough of a difference to make me decide that even though I don’t think they guy has a chance, I am going to vote for someone else. Question for you Jim. Coakley has not gotten the support of either big paper in the state, nor of the head of the dems in the Senate, yet she is still the leader in the polls. How the heck can that be the case?

 
At December 2, 2009 at 1:52 PM , Blogger Old soldier said...

I was not surprised by the decision to increase our ground force over there but was very surprised by the sales pitch used to sell the idea to the American public. I seem to recall a similar sales pitch several years ago that got us all to buy in, and we all know how that turned out.

 
At December 2, 2009 at 2:30 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

Some of our more senior readers can remember back to why we have fought other wars.. in the name of freedom for us and to some extent, the reasons seemed more true. The Germans who wanted to dominate the world, the Russians who wanted to expand communism and of coarse, China and Japan, who wanted all of us to follow Mow Si Tung, but since Vietnam, the reasons all seem to be well scripted in terms of eliminating czars, dictators, drug lords, weapons of mass destruction and now terrorists.

There is so much we don't know about this latest troop increases over a patch of dirt, but it's clear to me, that like the last 4 four wars, half or more of the natives, don't want us there at all. And like many of the others, we don't know who the bad guys really are.

It'll be very interesting to see if congress approves the funding and even more enlighting to see who among them all, supports the funding.

 
At December 2, 2009 at 2:34 PM , Blogger Derek said...

The debate preceding the president’s speech on war was the reason for changing my vote for our next senator. Capuano has voted against these wars in the past, and that alone will now get him my vote for senate. You are right about them all spewing the same baloney, but that difference alone is for me a reason to vote for him.

 
At December 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

Good to know other viewers of last nights debate caught Coakley's answers to Holmes. And I'll bet it may have changed a few minds.... enough to make a difference... time will tell.

Coakley has the support of every cop, DA, prison guard, probation officer and all but a few large unions, most of the D's in the Senate and House, and many who directly benefit from her past support of their causes. It was not any of us who said Coakley was ahead.. it was the media and talking heads with narrow polls directed at only the hard core D's. And up to just last night, many plain old voters got to see more of the other guys... and their answers. Which may have more of an impact than we think.

My choice was Kazi before this and after last night it still is. I can relate to his mantra and I can't think of a better time to show we mean business about lobbyists influence, than to send someone to Washington, who does not take PAC or lobbyists money.

 
At December 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM , Blogger SoxFan said...

You are right Pillsbury, this is about a patch of dirt with no real value to anyone except the people who live on the patch. If they don’t want us there, then why are we going?

 
At December 2, 2009 at 5:09 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coakley will win no matter what, so why do they even bother having these debates? Nothing but a waste of time. Most of us don’t even bother tuning in. We leave it to the political egg heads like you Pillsbury to do that for us.

 
At December 2, 2009 at 5:12 PM , Blogger Brian V. said...

100 terrorist there according to our general on the ground and we need to send in 30,000 additional troop to catch those 100 terrorists? Does anyone else out there see this equation as a bit lopsided? Jim, if the president can not get the support of congress will he still go or will that prevent us from getting into this mess even deeper than we now are in?

 
At December 2, 2009 at 5:58 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

After just watching General James Jones on CNN.... an advisory to Obama... I'm taking bets now on whether we are in Pakistan in 3 to 4 years.

I'm not sure how the parliamentary part of what the President can do if Congress doesn't fund it. I want to say, he has an emergency war power.. which I think Bush 2 may have used. Perhaps one of our readers can explain it to us... better than I.

There are protests across the country today, not unlike the past, the best requirement numbers in 37 years and a bad economy... we're sending our kids off in droves, not unlike the past, war does has it's financial rewards for those who feed upon it, not unlike the past. Until no one shows up and it's mandatory to serve, it seems, like we are destined for 3 plus years of war and perhaps with different players... Iran comes to mind, while were there anyway.

I hope I'm wrong

 
At December 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

I just saw Coakleys new add on TV.. she claims she has gotten millions in fines from her litigation efforts. Holding drug companies and others responsible.

So.. as taxpayers in this great State, we learned two months ago, that Coakley's budget was the only one that increased in size over this year. Her response to inquires was to say she had hired lawyers who were good at bringing in money to the State.

I feel much better, knowing my tax dollars have helped The AG's political aspirations.

 
At December 2, 2009 at 6:27 PM , Blogger Jim Pillsbury said...

Annon... you may be unfortunately correct....sad to say and is the main reason why we continue to elect only one party here. The actions or the lack of.. .by the elected elite, effect every single aspect of our lives, how we live and die, how much is in our paycheck, how much we pay for our children to go to school, our groceries, our land, water and air. They even send our kids off to war....

They rule our lives and it was never intended to be that way... but people just stopped caring.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home