Hunt Headlines - Making Sure YOU Have the Facts

"Our job is only to hold up the mirror - to tell and show the public what has happened." -Walter Cronkite

[ February 2010 ] [ April 2010 ]

Hunt Headlines - March 2010

Since When Did Terrorists Become U.S. Citizens?

March 6th 2010 23:16

Alrighty, now that I've drawn you in with that hellfire title, I can say what I've come here to post.

I was going through my news headlines for the day when I read a story that not only cocked my eyebrow high but definitely set an ulcer in my belly and a sour taste on my tongue.

I read on CNN.com that a Septembet 11th matermind terrorist may or may not be tried not only in New York City, but it's also unknown if he'll have a military or civilian trial.

The Obama administration has argued that a trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on American soil would serve as a symbol of the U.S.'s rule of law. Now, I can see some sense in that, as sort of a psychoplogical motivator maybe. Perhaps trying him here would be the ultimate ironic slap in the face and demonstrate to the rest of the country that we found these guys, brought them back, and made them pay for what they did.

The classic scenario of the sherrif bringing the outlaw back to the town he vandalized to imprison him....all while the world watched.

I kinda sort of like that idea, but I also don't like the idea of him being back there. Not just bad mojo or anything, but sort of the principle of the thing. Also, when I learned that New York Police have projected an annual cost to the city that could exceed $200 million a year if this trial goes on for years, I was a little more dissuaded to the idea.

The full story can be found here: Your text goes here

Congressional leaders are also arguing that Mohammed shouldn't receive a civilian trial to keep him away from the protections and privileges associated with said type of trial.

If this guy is confirmed to be one of the those behind an attack that killed thousands of our own, why would we give him any protections at all? We've seen that terrorists enjoy this type of publicity and are proud of the heinous acts they commit. This guy would probably come to New York laughing, happy at what he may or may not have achieved.

When the Nazis were tried for their mass genocide, they received a military tribunal at Nuremberg. I don't see why this terrorist deserves anything less than the same sort.

NOW REMEMBER: None of this has been confirmed yet. I am not condemning any side in this, I am just saying it doesn't make much sense to me, coming from an American citizen's standpoint.

But what do you think?

117

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Lawton - Category: blogging

Email this Post to a Friend

Obama=Snookie?!

March 4th 2010 20:02

Seriously? For the sake of Republican Paul Broun's party and for everything they stand for and are trying to achieve in this country, I pray to God that this is not the Republican consensus.

For those who haven't heard by now, Broun, in discussing the "concessions" that President Obama made to Republican ideas within health care reform in an attempt to strike a compromise, remarked how the President's efforts possessed about as much substance as Snookie from the MTV show "Jersey Shore".

Now, this is not the first time lawmakers have referenced pop culture in their arguments regarding the other party, it's not like this is some "new low" in my mind, but let's be reasonable here. There has got to be a better analogy for this particular health care situation.

But let's go over what Broun said exactly:

"I don't know if we should be insulted or humored at the President's feeble attempts to incorporate Republican ideas into his latest health care proposal. Snookie, from the Jersey Shore, has more substance than President Obama's offer."

This is said after Obama incorporated just four Republican ideas into his health care proposal. And those are:

1) Medicare Fraud
2) Medical Malpractice
3) Health Savings Accounts
4) Upping reimbursement to doctors who see Medicaid patients

Now that has to be just crumbs compared to the cake that Republicans want. Republicans for the most part want to start over from the beginning, and Dems have no intentions of doing so. There is definite conflict, and if non-partisan actions are the only way to pass health care reform, I unfortunately think that may be what it comes down to.

But, if Republicans are going to fire at the Dems with this kind of insulting language, I'm only saying, it makes me wonder. Even if Obama were to include their top priorities in the bill, would they still vote for it at the risk of making the Democratic President look like he's reached across the aisle? Or, in political spite, would they withold their votes and preserve the stalemate long enough for 2012?

I'm not saying that's what's happening, but there's certainly no evidence that I see suggesting otherwise.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Lawton - Category: blogging

Email this Post to a Friend

Latest Obama Blast: Mitt Romney Picks up a Stone

March 3rd 2010 06:01

2008 Republican Presidential nominee and possible future 2012 contender Mitt Romney took a stab at President Obama's foreign policy in his latest book entitled: "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness".

In it, Mr. Romney criticizes the Democrat's behavior around the leaders of foreign countries, attempting to reconcile with those angered by the policies and actions of former President George W. Bush. Romney called Obama's actions in that regard within his first year "kindling" to the "anti-American fires burning all across the globe".

Now when we read this, we can only assume that Mitt is referring to these past few instances:

Specifically, these are the moments when the President bowed whilst greeting Japanese Emperor Akihito and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, respectively. Obama caught a bunch of flak for these actions in foreign countries, being called a "groveller", showing deference to countries that had once been viewed as enemies of the U.S.

Romney was quoted saying "....our president should proudly defend [our country] rather than continually apologize for her."

But, not bashing either side of the argument, are we so sure that defending the nation's former attitudes toward other countries was the best idea? When the American people have already rejected a foreign policy that was authored by former Vice President Dick Cheney and embraced by Romney that arguably only alienated our allies and made our nation less secure, why would going back to that policy seem appealing at all?

Now, I'm just speaking on behalf of a registered voter/blogger, and I'm trying to think as best I can about what's going through my mind when I think about if Romney were placed in Obama's situation.

The bottom line is, it's easy to point fingers and place blame, but until Romney actually wins the office and walks in Obama's moccasins, I can't associate much validation with his accusations.

But I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this as well. What are they?

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nick Lawton - Category: blogging

Email this Post to a Friend

7 Posts

2 Posts

3 Posts