Thinking about Love at Christmastime

The commandment about loving God and loving our neighbor is first and foremost. Jesus said that "all the Law and the Prophets hang upon these two commandments." (Matt 22:40) This theme is carried throughout the Bible. In 1 Peter 4:8 it is written that "above all things have fervent love for one another." Paul also said that we should put love above all else (Colossians 3:14), and that we should "owe no one anything except to love one another." (Romans 13:8)

Again and again in the Bible we repeatedly find that love is placed above all else. Love is called "more excellent than any other gift or ability. (1 Cor 12:31) "Now abide faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:13) The law of love is called the "royal law" (James 2:8), which we are "taught by God." (1 Thessalonians. 4:9) We are asked to "make love our greatest aim," (1 Cor 14:1) to "be rooted and grounded in love." (Ephesians. 3:17)

These laws about love are so important that Jesus said they should be a part of the hearts of all Christians. “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:6,7)

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Cor 16:14)

This means that you should give to others, your love and your help, all year round – not just at Christmastime. In celebrating Jesus' birth, remember that Jesus was all about Love and inclusiveness.

This goes beyond spin – it’s lying

Senate Republicans Filibuster Defense Spending Bill — Then Deny They Did It

The Republicans have shown that they will stoop to shameful and despicable tactics to stop the passage of health care reform. The Grand Obstructionist Party (the Party of No) is now a party of clowns who have forgone the work of legislating to stage circus stunts and then refuse to admit they are doing so. Late last night, while our troops were in harm’s way on two battlefields, the Republicans decided to deprive our soldiers of needed funding, by attempting to block passage of the military spending bill using a filibuster. Fortunately, all 60 Democratic votes were available to overcome the parliamentary assault on our troops by Republicans.

Why did the Republicans jeopardize vital funding for our troops in a time of war? It was a calculated stunt to delay the debate on health care reform – and nothing else matters to the obstructionist Republicans, not even the safety of our troops. If Democrats had pulled such a stunt during a time of war, they would have been attacked as treasonous.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wasn’t even ashamed enough to lie about Republican reasons to block war funding. “I don’t want health care,” he said. Other GOP lawmakers pointed to the earmarks in the defense funding bill, but the results were the same. Every Republican Senator voted against the defense funding bill in a 63 to 33 vote, except for the two Senators from Maine, Snowe and Collins, and Sen. Hutchison from Texas. And even those three Republican lawmakers didn’t record their votes until all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had voted.

At this point in the health care reform debate, most people are well aware that the Republican strategy is to delay the vote as long as possible, even if it means dragging out debate on unrelated bills that GOP leaders support. That tactic was on display in October, when it took nearly a month to push through an extension of unemployment benefits that ultimately passed 98 to 0.

With their hypocrisy on full display, Republicans filibustered the $636.3 billion 2010 defense spending bill that every member of the party will eventually vote for. They did this as a way of delaying a return to the health care debate, which Democrats are trying to finish by Christmas. But on a 63-33 vote that at 1 a.m., the Senate finally mustered more than the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster and move to a final vote on the defense bill, scheduled for Saturday morning. Three Republicans joined with Democrats in voting to end the filibuster. Forcing that cloture vote is what is necessary to end a filibuster.

From Roll Call:
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) accused Republicans of attempting to filibuster the Defense bill, which includes funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, in an effort to block work on the health care bill. Then, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (AZ) and other Republicans, however, sought to place the blame for the funding delay on the Democrats, accusing them of dragging their feet in bringing the bill to the floor and arguing that they [Republicans] are prepared to pass the bill.

“I find it rather curious that our colleague … is accusing Republicans of filibustering this Defense appropriations bill. Republicans don’t control the Senate or the House. The House just passed this bill Wednesday. Now, it could have been passed in October or September,” Kyl lied, adding that, “We always vote for the Defense appropriations bill.”

Moments later, Kyl refused an attempt to pass the defense bill immediately by unanimous consent. Then, a few hours later, he voted against bringing the defense bill to a final vote. These are the actions of a dishonest politician.

It is essential to pass the funding bill this week, because a Pentagon stopgap funding measure is due to expire at midnight Friday. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was furious at the Republican tactics. He sent an angry letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blasting the Republican stunt that would cause a “serious disruption” in the military’s ability to pay its troops during Christmas. “It is inconceivable to me that such a situation would be permitted to occur with U.S. forces actively deployed in combat,” Gates wrote.

The Republicans voting with Kyl should be forced to explain why they sought to kill a bill that provides troop funding in the middle of two wars. “They are prepared to jeopardize funding for troops at war,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). “If Democrats did that, there would be cries of treason.” And yet GOP leaders have the audacity to argue that (1) they didn’t really filibuster the defense bill and (2) the Democrats are behind all the delays.

This isn’t spin – it’s lying. These Republicans are pulling dirty tricks (as usual) and then lying as they point their fingers at the Democrats and saying “they did it.”

Time to kill the bill

The Health Care Reform Bill at it now stands in the Senate is essentially a bill written by lobbyists for insurance companies, drug companies, and for-profit medical providers. With the exception of a few good provisions (increases in Medicaid eligibility, elimination of pre-existing conditions) most of what's left of health care "reform" not only isn't perfect, it is not even good. It has become a BAD BILL. The only argument left for supporting this bill is that Democrats needs to pass something, anything, called "health care reform" to prove they can accomplish something and not be punished by voters.

The best solution now is to let it go down in the Senate and then blame the Party of No and the Party of Joe. Kill the bill and then salvage its useful components through reconciliation (discussed at the end of this article).

Since Democrats campaigned on universal healthcare, voters may well be less likely to vote for them if they don't deliver. Unfortunately, this is a dilemma of Obama's and Congressional Democrat's own making. If Democrats pass a bad bill which forces people to buy unaffordable minimum insurance and then turns around and taxes employees with good insurance, voters will be even more likely to punish them.

The current Senate bill supposedly provides health care to the uninsured, but it is done by a mandate forcing them to buy unaffordable policies from for-profit private companies. If they do not buy the insurance, they will be fined by the IRS. This bill puts no limits on premiums, allows drug companies to charge whatever they want, and taxes the insurance policies of union workers and older Americans whose premiums are higher. This health care reform bill has become a massive taxpayer-financed subsidy to private insurance and drug companies.

Currently, health insurance policies for individuals average over $6,000 per year and policies for families average over $14,000 per year and are increasing about 10% annually. Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate.

By 2016, one of the most popular plans, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost a family more than $20,000 per year!

When the American people realize how much they will have to pay and how little they will get in return, they will blame the Democrats, with lots of encouragement from Republicans who will still claim this government subsidy to private businesses is "socialism". Rather than this being an incremental step, as liberals hope, it's more likely to prove to them that the government is forcing them to buy a defective product which they can't afford. Nobody is "getting covered" here. People are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write.

Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say that even without a public option, the bill still "covers" 30 million more Americans. What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess. ~Jim Dean, Democracy for America

There are more bad provisions in the bill:

• Nothing in the bill limits how much insurance companies can charge for premiums. While the bill prevents insurance companies from rejecting people for pre-existing conditions, they will almost surely use the excuse that they are taking on additional risk and raise premiums. In addition, they will probably use the 4 years between the time the legislation passes and the time the mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges take effect in 2014 to raise premiums at an even faster rate, just as banks jacked up credit card rates between the time Congress passed credit card reform and the time it takes effect. This will blow the budgets of the American people and the Federal government.

There are two ways to control premiums, none of which are in the bill. The first might have been a robust public option tied to Medicare rates. This would have given people an alternative to private insurance if the private insurers raised their rates too much. But first the Blue Dogs in the House killed the Medicare rate tie-in and then the Senate caved into Joe Lieberman and killed the public option entirely. The other way to control premiums would be through government price regulation. Most states, which require that car-owners carry liability insurance in exchange for the privilege of driving, have insurance rate regulation. No one has proposed that federal health insurance mandates include rate regulation. With no robust public option, no rate regulation, and over 30 million mandated new customers, insurance companies can charge whatever they want.

• The bill does not allow Medicare to use its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices or allow people to buy cheaper drugs from Canada. This would have saved tens of billions of dollars a year, which could have been used to make health care more affordable. The House bill still contains the Medicare drug negotiating provision, but it's been stripped from the Senate bill.

• The subsidies are paid for by charging a 40% excise tax on employer-paid health insurance policies costing more than $8500 for individuals or $23,000 for families. This is called a "Cadillac tax" but it's really a "Chevy tax". It would fall on approximately 19% of policies in its first year. Many union-negotiated policies cost more than this, especially for workers in high risk jobs. In addition many older people pay more than this in premiums. In order to avoid the tax, businesses will provide only basic policies which have higher deductibles and higher co-pays for the employees.

• The Senate has stripped out the language that would end the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies. They are the only business – other than professional baseball – which is not subject to anti-trust laws. This means the Federal government can't do anything to prevent insurance companies from engaging in price fixing and dividing up markets.

• The Senate has stripped out provisions that prevent insurance companies from placing caps on the amount of benefits they pay out to individuals or families. This means that after paying premiums and co-pays, someone who gets really sick and needs expensive treatment like chemotherapy or organ transplants could end up exceeding the cap and having to pay the rest of their healthcare costs themselves, likely bankrupting them if they do not just walk away from getting the care they need (and then dying).

Democrats should introduce a series of individual bills and use reconciliation where possible. When reconciliation is not possible, then force Republicans and corporate Democrats to filibuster against individual popular provisions such as:

• Providing cost-savings reforms to Medicare. In particular, abolish the Medicare Advantage program which subsidizes private insurance companies to provide Medicare drug benefits at a 17% higher cost than the original government-run Medicare plan.

• Increasing Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, and subsidize the states for the extra cost.

• Letting Medicare use its negotiating power to lower drug costs and allow people to buy cheaper drugs in Canada.

• Revoking the insurance company's anti-trust exemption.

• No longer allowing insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions, refuse to pay claims, put caps on total insurance amounts paid over a lifetime, or drop people who get sick.

• Letting uninsured individuals buy into the Federal Employee Health Plan available to government workers.

It would have been better if the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats had stood up to the insurance and drug companies, the Republicans, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman in the first place. They should have fought hard for a good bill. Under the circumstances, it is better to kill this bill.

Lieberman’s possible secret deal

In politics, the name of the game is ‘you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.’ Most members of Congress, except for the very rich or very safe, are for sale. So what does Joe Lieberman expect to receive in exchange for betraying the party who foolishly handed him their vice presidential nomination in 2000 and gave him the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee? That question has been on the minds of just about every person in America who cares about passing healthcare reform. Everyone knows that if President Obama signs a bill requiring all Americans to purchase the expensive products from a handful of private insurance giants, it will indeed be his Waterloo.

There are a lot of theories out there as to why Lieberman is doing this: He is doing it for the attention, or to boost his own influence in shaping the final bill, or he is still mad at Democrats for defeating him in the primaries in 2006, or maybe he is just an egotistical jerk. (I’ll go with all of the above.) Newsweek says that Lieberman is just demonstrating how a person behaves when there has been no price to pay for disloyalty – and I agree. But if he cares little about what the citizens of Connecticut want or the people of America want, then that just leaves the insurance companies.

Richardson of the LA Times speculates: “Lieberman, who isn’t seeking office again, doesn’t care if most people in Connecticut want a public option. Nor does he care if most people in America want it. He doesn’t care if he shoots down healthcare reform entirely and destroys the best hope for reform in decades.”

Lieberman’s narcissism and vindictiveness toward the Democrats suggests that he is not running for re-election in 2012. What he is doing right now is called “securing his golden parachute.” If he rigs the game so that all Americans have to purchase insurance but insurance companies do not have any competition, he will have surpassed the industry’s wildest expectations. I am betting that he finds a cushy job with a Connecticut insurance giant when he is out of office.

Ron Williams, the CEO of Aetna, one of the many insurance companies headquartered in Lieberman’s home state, earned $24,300,112 in total compensation last year. Lieberman’s net worth, which is somewhere just under $2.5 million, makes him the 54th richest Senator out of 100. And since his last book deal was back in 2001, there is currently nothing that will give Lieberman a boost into a wealthy retirement.

When members of Congress leave office for good, those who aren’t Kennedys or Pelosis or Rockefellars do it hoping to finally make some real money. Why should Lieberman be any different? In supporting John McCain, Lieberman was probably hoping to become a high ranking cabinet member, giving him more access and potentially unlimited future income opportunities. Since that failed, Lieberman is likely hanging his hopes on the big insurance companies to give him a golden parachute.

So…now, we wait. If Lieberman has an insurance industry lobbying job offer on the table, he won’t be able to keep it secret forever. If this turns out to be true, then somehow he needs to pay a big personal price for trading the best interests of Americans for a cushy job with an insurance company.

Speaking of American exceptionalism…

In reconciling getting a Nobel Peace Prize just after calling for a military escalation in Afghanistan, President Obama boldly made the case for ‘just wars’ such as the one in Afghanistan. At the same time, he spoke of America’s exceptionalism by lauding the contributions the United States has made in promoting peace when we fought World War II, produced the Marshall Plan, helped with the creation of the U.N., and participate in nuclear disarmament.

Yet the gist of his acceptance speech was reconciling how war is sometimes necessary while at the same time mankind must strive for a better world:

“We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected,” he said at the end of the speech. “We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place… So let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.”

Obama addressed two criticisms from those who did not want him to receive the award:

1. He does not deserve the award:

“Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight,” he said. “I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.”

2. He is receiving a peace prize as his country fights two wars:

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”

Just as in his Berlin speech during the presidential campaign, Obama also argued how the United States has helped forge world peace:

“Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.”

Yet he also said -- in a swipe at Cheney and Bush -- that the U.S. must adhere to the standards that govern wars:

“America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.”

Obama then discussed three ways the world can build lasting peace:

1. Enact and enforce tough sanctions and penalties on countries Korea that violate rules and laws:

“But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system…. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia.”

2. Protect the inherent rights and dignity of all peoples:

“I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.”

3. Promote economic security and opportunity:

“It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive.”

You would think that even the most ardent critic of the president's foreign policy would have a hard time picking apart President Obama’s Oslo speech. In fact, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin all lauded the speech because Obama went before the Nobel Committee of Peace to reconcile how war is sometimes necessary while, at the same time, mankind must strive for a peaceful world.

But if all that we notice in President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture is a justification of war, we will miss the crux of his thinking – that he called forth the hope of peace. President Obama spoke of a 21st century ‘just peace’, the middle ground between thinking of a ‘just war’ and pacifism – defining what a 'just peace' is and articulating how to go about providing such a peace.

President Obama absolutely believes in American Exceptionalism. It’s just not the perverted neo-con version that Dick Cheney extols.

You are a mean one, Mr. Grinch

Every now and then there comes along a person that 99.9 percent of the people wish would just go away. Dick Cheney is one of those people. Cheney has stepped up his attack on President Obama, telling news pundits that Obama's security strategy endangers American lives. The man is acting like he is possessed by the devil; but even the devil would be wary of cohabiting with the likes of what Cheney has become.

Just which Obama policies does he think are making us less safe? Escalating the war in Afghanistan that Cheney and Bush dithered around on for eight years? Or finishing the job in Iraq that he and Bush spent billions of dollars on and made a mess of? Do Cheney and his neo-con followers really think that Obama’s bowing to the Japanese king makes the United States less safe? That is pure poppycock. Although I believe the deep bow was an error – a slight ‘business bow’ or nod of the head would have been polite enough – it certainly did no great harm to our country. And, remember, Bush bowed to the Saudi king – held hands with him, too. Cheney did not throw a tantrum over that bow.

So who is this person who claims to know better than the rest of us?

It was Dick Cheney, former VP of the United States, and Bush who ignored intelligence briefings on Al Qaeda for months. Thousands of Americans were killed on their watch in an attack that could have been prevented and thousands more in a war in Iraq. After the nation was attacked, Cheney spent the remainder of his time as VP fearfully hiding in a bunker for weeks at a time, filled with paranoia from seeing enemies lurk in every corner. I can still see him in my mind’s eye shaking in his boots. Why? Cheney received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War. One time, when questioned about the deferments, he said that he had “other priorities” in the sixties rather than military service.

Although Cheney was not willing to put his own life on the line for his country, he was more than willing to send thousands of young Americans into war. Nearly 3,000 died at the World Trade Center due to Cheney’s and Bush’s eyes being off the ball. More than 4,000 American soldiers were killed, thousands of American soldiers were permanently maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died because of the Bush administration's incompetence and hawkish policies.

Cheney was more than willing to torture other human beings although regular FBI interrogation methods work well. The torture they advocated and pushed onto the CIA produced false information that was used to mislead America into an unwise, unjust, and unwarranted war. With such dirty hands, it seems to me that Cheney would be ashamed about of accusing anyone of endangering America or of defending the use of torture. The public records of Congressional testimony of military, CIA, and FBI personnel have given us evidence that torture actually endangered American security rather than protect. It did so by breeding more terrorists and producing false intelligence – which Mr. Cheney, along with President Bush, used to mislead America into invading Iraq.

Dick Cheney went on FOX’s Sean Hannity show this week to discuss his favorite topic, the "weakness" of President Barack Obama. Cheney said the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators in civilian court would give aid and comfort to the enemy: “I think it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world. It will put him on the map. He'll be as important or more important than Osama Bin Laden, and we will have made it possible.” Cheney is saying that the act of giving KSM a civilian trial will make him more of a hero than Osama bin Laden is – all the while ignoring that the killing of thousands of Americans during Cheney’s watch made KSM a hero to extremists. This is cherry picking and complete nonsense.

What did do great harm to our country was Cheney and Bush allowing private contractors like Halliburton rake in billions in profits (from taxpayers’ money) doing what our armed services should be doing. And need I mention what that administration did to our economy by giving full reign to the financial sector? What about the billions of dollars that went into the pockets of the wealthy from tax cuts while running up the deficit at the same time with two wars? Stupid – very stupid. These policies bankrupted America.

Dick Cheney has warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed. Of course there is a high probability that the United States will be attacked again – duh – and it won’t matter who is president. Remember, the U.S. was attacked on Clinton’s watch and on Bush’s watch. In fact, we lost more lives in the World Trade Center attack than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Facts have shown us that Cheney and Bush had the information about an imminent attack but chose to ignore it.

I guess Cheney thinks the failure to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora does not count as an act that made this country less safe. Gen. Stanley McChrystal testified to Congress this week that Al Qaeda would not be defeated until bin Laden is dead. Yet somehow, according to Cheney, putting KSM on trial will make him more important than the founder and continuing leader of Al Qaeda, whose death is essential to Al Qaeda's ultimate defeat according to the American military commander in Afghanistan?

Mr. Cheney is not a credible spokesman on issues of national security. He went over to the dark side years ago, turning into a Darth Vader – an unyielding presence who shoots first, asks questions later, and answers to no one, not even the president he supposedly served. Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, describes Dick Cheney as “amoral; he’s Machiavelli’s prince writ large.”

John Perry Barlow, the Wyoming native and Internet-privacy advocate who worked on Cheney’s first congressional campaign, is blunt in his description of him. According to Barlow, Cheney’s “dark intellect has become one of the most dangerous forces in the world… a global sociopath, a creature of enormous power and intellect combined with all the empathy of a HAL 9000 [the murderous computer in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey].”

The truth is that it was Mr. Cheney’s policies that did not keep us safe. Dick Cheney’s definition of American exceptionalism led to the arrogance and recklessness that turned attention from Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda was) and put emphasis on Iraq (where Al Qaeda did not exist at the time) – so if Obama doesn’t share his version of American exceptionalism, good.

The 2006 and 2008 elections were reactions against the neo-con version of American exceptionalism, with President Obama's election being the major plot point at which voters rejected it. Opposing the Iraq war and seeking to regain America's global standing were focal points in his campaign, and the American public agreed, despite the heavy fire Obama took from “conservatives” for, for instance, going to Germany to deliver a speech. In January 2009, just before Obama was inaugurated, 74 percent of U.S. adults (including 47 percent of Republicans) thought the Bush administration had damaged America's global standing, and 83 percent said it was important for Obama to work to improve it

Actually, I do not think that Cheney really believes President Obama is really making this country less safe. I think he is just trying to recast his legacy of hate and wrongheadedness. He knows the history books will show him as having a dark and nasty character. He knows that if the Obama administration is successful, history will view his own administration as unsuccessful and harmful. “Cheney’s manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities,” said Chas Freeman, who served under Bush’s father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. “It was clear from the start that Bush required adult supervision – but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ***.”

Cheney is a national embarrassment and permanent stain in our nation’s history. With each passing day, Cheney’s actions confirm that he is by far the worst and most damaging person to have held the second highest office in our country. I blame Cheney for what has happened to the United States. President Bush, who is not very bright, was just an ignorant puppet for Cheney, the puppet master. In fact if there is another attack, the blame could now be laid at Cheney’s feet for his unpatriotic, treacherous hate speech. His verbal attacks on President Obama go beyond expressing an opposing viewpoint. His words alone could invite another attack.

You are a mean one, Mr. Grinch. Go crawl back in your bunker and shut up.

It is Obama’s war now

The main rationale for staying in the war in Afghanistan has always been that if Kabul fell to the Taliban, al-Qaeda terrorists would once again move in and use the country as a safe haven from which to plan further attacks on the United States and its allies.

Why is Obama faced with escalating the eight-year-long conflict? Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks blew the chance to get Osama Bin Laden in Tora Bora by not mobilizing U.S. forces, and relying on Afghans and Pakistanis to prevent Bin Laden’s escape. Obama has to send a surge of troops into the Afghanistan War because the job didn’t get done on the last watch.

“The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.” ~ the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry

This is a no win situation.

Holding at the current level of troops is the clearest recipe for war without end. The existing troops can probably hold the Taliban at bay and keep Afghanistan from falling apart, but little more. The war then becomes a contest of endurance that the American people will not tolerate.

If the U.S. pulled out entirely, it is a near certainty that the Taliban would march into Kabul and most other Afghan towns in a matter of weeks. True, the Taliban is not the same as al-Qaeda, but there is little doubt that they would provide sanctuary and alliance (as they did after the Soviets were ousted), and this would strengthen al-Qaeda in its struggle against Pakistan, the United States, and others. One might dispute the significance of this direct danger to the United States. Al-Qaeda can plan attacks on the U.S. from other places. It is naive to claim that leaving Afghanistan would have no effect.

Another problem with withdrawing is that it would signal victory for anti-American forces. If we left Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, especially after such a prolonged stay, what other embattled people would trust the United States and its allies to come in and protect them from insurgents? In order to withdraw from a stable nation, a surge must happen first. This is called “getting the job done”.

Fighting from a distance using drones to make air strikes may be appealing, but it neglects the reality that you need good intelligence to know who and where the bad guys are. To get good intelligence you need troops on the ground that are not only fighting the Taliban but are to cultivating and earning the local people's trust.

After Bush's horrible mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan, I am impressed that Obama's team seems to have given serious thought to the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the legitimacy of the Karzai government, the lessons of the Soviet experience, how to pre-empt future demands for more troops, how to maximize leverage, and how to craft an exit strategy. According to some officials, after each of nine sessions, Obama was dissatisfied with the answers and hammered his advisors to bring back more detail the next time – on the state of the Afghan army, on the impact that various deployments would have on the state of the U.S. army, on a province-by-province breakdown of Afghan politics and security. All these questions directly, even crucially, affect calculations of the chances of success or failure. The president said he is now satisfied "there's not an important question out there that has not been asked and that we haven't answered to the best of our abilities," and, as a result of this process, he will feel "much more confident" about the orders he is issuing.

In a statement issued as Obama was announcing his new plan for Afghanistan, McChrystal said the president had provided him with a clear mission and sufficient resources. The general told the forces that the situation has improved with the commitment of additional troops, giving the mission better clarity, capacity, commitment and confidence. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "As the U.S. increases its commitment, I am confident that the other allies, as well as our partners in the mission, will also make a substantial increase in their contribution."

I sure hope so – because it is time for the world to stop depending on America to police it.

The far right gives Obama no credit for upping the troop level and giving the troops a mission of better clarity, commitment, and confidence. Those on the far left are angry that we are not pulling out of Afghanistan immediately. But if Obama were to send far fewer troops than his commanders want – or pull out completely – and then we are once again attacked by terrorists, he would be blamed, whether appropriate or not. Regardless of politics, the United States cannot quit the war and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban – and by extension, Al Qaeda.

I am not in the least bit surprised that President Obama made the right decision. He has put the nation’s security before party and politics. Afghanistan was the country from which Al Qaeda trained and planned the 9-11 attack. This is the war that the Bush Administration should have given first priority – which is what Obama has said all along. Obama may have inherited this mismanaged eight-year-long war, but he has now fully shouldered the burden and taken ownership.

Come what may – for better or worse – the war in Afghanistan now belongs to President Obama.