Letter to the Editor
Odd column
Published Sunday, June 1, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!May 28, 2008
To the editor:
Regarding today’s odd Cal Thomas column (May 28, 2008): George W. Bush was not a “warrior,” even in the Texas Air Guard, (though his father certainly could be called one).
Clinton wasn’t a warrior. Reagan wasn’t a warrior, (though he played one in the movies — does that impress Cal Thomas?).
Carter was a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, trained in the art/science of war by the U.S. government, (and hence reluctant to take that path lightly, unlike the “chickenhawks” of the neo-con insiders group).
Cal Thomas’ polemic tries to heap disrespect on candidate Barack Obama but seems illogical and specious in my opinion.
“Warrior?” And what does this have to do with selecting a president of the United States of America? Does he want generals to govern, as in Myanmar? That is not the American way of self-government.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Out of curiosity, I went back and read the Cal Thomas article referred to in this letter, and in a letter by Mr Heacock.
I did not get from the article that Thomas was particularly advocating military experience as a prerequisite to be president. He did seem to advocate, that in these times of a war on terrorism, that we need a warrior, not an appeaser. Mr Gray and Mr Heacock might disagree with that. They might well think that there is no such thing as global jihad, or if there is such a thing that it is not serious. "Let's go talk to them."
Having no military experience does not preclude or prohibit Obama from being president. Many great presidents have had no military experience. Lincoln comes to mind. Then again, neither does having military experience preclude or prohibit. Eisenhower comes to mind. Both Lincoln and Eisenhower were reluctant "warriors".
In my opinion, Obama would be an appeaser. He might change after we are attacked again, but do you want to take that chance?
I am also wary of some of the people that he has surrounded himself with over the years. Maybe it's just a coincidence, and maybe it's a Chicago thing. Hanging out with terrorists and racists scares me.
Sen. Obama suggesting open communication with Cuba=appeasement.
President Bush holding hands with Saudi princes=diplomacy.
I'm always puzzled by how one determines who is an "appeaser" and who is a "good politician".
As for worrying about the people a leader (or potential leader) surrounds themselves with, I'll cast my wary eye back to President Bush, as well.
I actually like the idea of havng a CIC with military experience (actual, that is, not whatever President Bush engaged in) so in that respect I feel McCain isn't the 'worst' choice. But combined with his stances on other issues I'm less likely to vote for him than Senator Obama (he's got a shot against Senator Clinton with me). Of course, the Founding Fathers thought the only prerequisites were that an individual be over the age of 35, a U.S. resident for 14 years, and a natural-born citizen.
'Course, those dudes also didn't think I should get to vote, or that Senator Obama would be considered, you know, a human being.
as a former military member, I would like my President to have military experience, but wouldnt vote solely on that.
glacierles..."Hanging out with terrorists and racists scares me."
Does his middle name scare you?
Be afraid, be very afraid!
You have noticed who McBush hangs out with dont you?
Now thats scary, but I dont fear a man who will lose in November.
I fear what the 20%'s will try to do to change that inevitable fact.
Don - just because Carter (or anyone for that matter) is schooled in the art of war does not make them a warrior
I do agree with the majority here in that military experience should definitely be a plus, but by no means a "prerequisite"
The one problem I see with our present system is it is based on a party system. I see to much of people voting for a party than the person. Isn't it time we voted for the person and for the good of the country and forget the party.
Independence and freedom means the right to choose.
YMBC---
Obama's middle name slips my mind, as it is irrelevant.
No, I'm more concerned with Jeremiah Wright, the Catholic priest the other day (Pfluegger?), James H. Cone, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, the terrorist Bill Ayers, and his lovely bride Bernie.
Who is McBush? Is that the boogeyman in your imagination? Who do you refer to about your boogeyman hanging out with? I mean really hanging out with, not just receiving an endorsment from (as Obama has from Hamas).
And are you claiming that 20% of the voters have stolen an election in the past? Is that a reference to 2000? I'm not versed in your code phrases, sorry.
Keep up the good work glacierles, the 20...19...18%'s are proud of you. Thanks for spreading the word, it always helps us understand your thinking. YouMustBConfused
Amen glacierles. (yes, y'all can take a shot at my apparent religious inference:)
Why?
This week's The Economist has a very good half page piece in it about how talking with the enemy is not in and of itself appeasement and in many cases is good smart statesmanship. One example it uses is when Daddy Bush sent James Baker to Geneva in 1991 to talk with Tariq Aziz of Iraq just after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and told Aziz that America would be trowing Iraq out of Kuwait by force."Hardly appeasement" is the direct quote. Nowhere have I heard Obama say he would talk gently to Iran just that he would talk to them. The piece also has an interesting example of how not talking to the enemy can be poor statesmanship. (For the uninitiated The Economist can hardly be called leftist.)
Thanks Don for the term “chickenhawks.” I had not thought of it in reference to this particular group of idiots but I will be using it from now on.
I'm SICK of warrior presidents! We already have an ignorant, arrogant, warrior president who's only tool has been an outrageously expensive, illegal hammer, because he sees the world as his personal bag of nails to pound as he pleases. (Personally, I believe he should be pounding rocks in Guantanamo, but that's a different subject.)
It's time to evolve past the warrior mentality to higher forms of thinking before it kills us! Albert Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we had when we created them." We need intelligent, articulate leaders who see outside the archaic tool box, who'll bring more than bigger hammers to the table.
Our trillion-dollar hammer isn't working in our favor, and is actually working against us, as we hammer out more enemies every day. It's time we tried brains instead of hammers. Obama has brains. McCain has hammers. The choice is clear.
A few weeks back I opened the paper to the letters & opinion page (better than the funnies in my opinion) and was greeted by the scowling faces of Helen Thomas and Cal Thomas. Mind you, this was before my first cup of coffee. I thought I'd slid through a time warp and landed on Halloween. Then I had an epiphany. The News-Miner could vastly improve both the intellectual standard and the general appearance of its opinion page simply by refusing to print any nationally syndicated columnist with the last name of Thomas.
How about it, Mr. Editor?
There is a big difference between the POTUS speaking with, and giving credibility to, a nation like Iran or Venezuela, and sending an emmisary. But Obama is doing a serious backflip on this issue, just as he is on withdrawing the troops from Iraq immediately. Whatever he thinks, says, or does will make no difference to those who believe that he is a messiah. It will all feel, and seem, good.
The_Alaska_Curmudgeon,
Hate to say it but I think I agree with you. I sometimes like to read Cal Thomas but Helen infuriates me so I guess I would be willing to pass on Cal if I wouldn't have to see Helen's smiling visage in the News Miner. I can always "Google" to find Cal (if I'm about to go into 'withdrawal' for not having read any of his articles recently). If there is anyone who actually 'craves' Helen Thomas' unhinged rantings, they could also find her via a Google Search.
To Glacieries, Small correction During the Black Hawk War, Abraham Lincoln of New Salem, Illinois served three enlistments.
This is just my opinion, but it doesn't matter who wins in November, our country will be unsettled with the winner. All the candidates are wishy-washy so-and-so's. Here are some brief highlights (you folks can add to the list if you want):
The democrats' nomination is still up for grabs so I've included both candidates.
Obama is going to give part of our GNP to the UN to alleviate global discomfort, sign treaties forcing us to surrender our handguns and hand over parental rights to the government, and more taxes. His words are empty and seem to change with the direction of the wind.
Hilary is just an extension of her husband and will bring socialized medicine and more taxes.
McCain is a bland flavor of Bush, so will probably mirror the same type of policies.
Voting this November will be very hard to do. Who we vote for determines the course our nation takes not only for the next four years but could ultimately change the course our nation takes in decades to come.
It can be a pivotal point in history. It can change how we live (i.e., our religious freedom). Change is good if we're heading in the right direction. Change you can believe in...well, that is the real question, isn't it? Character and integrity is important. Like-minded people associate with one another. Who does your candidate hang out with? Who endorses him/her? Look beyond the double-speak and find out his/her values. Do they reflect yours? Would you like your children to grow up under his/her value system?
When our next President stands up against our enemies, will he/she defend the Constitution of the United States or will he/she change it to suit his/her purposes? Will he/she prove to be a patriot or a Quisling?
Obama is an idiot. Notice how fast the media dumped Hillary for Osama, ooops I mean Obama (A simple mistake, just ask Teddy Kennedy). George Soros and company will get what they want and then all of you Obamamaniacs will get to see a real joke running the country. 57 states, duhh, uhhhh.
There is a group called the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). They have 57 member states. Maybe that's what Obama was referring to.
http://www.oic-un.org/about/members.htm
Doug in Salcha: Where'd you see Helen Thomas with a smile? I didn't know she was capable. Wow, you learn something new every time you log on to this site.
The system is broken. We have Democrats who are basically socialists and then we have republicans, which primarily are socialists (cough-BUSH-cough). Prepare for more of the same until its either too late and we're happy members of the north american union, or we're going to see things get really messy between now and then.
I personally think that electing a socialist/communist such as Obama might be the best thing that could happen. Hopefully people would see what the real agenda and wake up and combat the socialist infestation and the nanny-state that America is becoming.
and PS- hellen thomas is the anti-christ.
Personally I don't see socialist as bad. I've spent time in socialist countries and received better health care than I ever did in the US...for free. What I'd like to see is the amount of the budget that goes for corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex switched with the budget for domestic social programs that help normal Americans. I'd like to see the regulations put back on the airline industry like in the days when air travel was cheaper and safer. Deregulation has been one of the worst and most under-reported tragedy for America in the last century.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.