Obama won’t fire guilty
Since President Brack Obama took office, there have been many questions about why he hasn’t fired those who have been the main figures in the many scandals in the White House. I think the reason the president has not taken action is because we have the enemy in the White House and his name is Barack Obama.
If you were the enemy trying to take over the United States for ulterior motives, would you fire those who were helping your cause? I think not! What are we patriots to conclude other than that he is forcing his liberal and socialistic agendas on us? Not to remove supervisors, and “higher ups” when they have been proven incompetent and dishonest is dishonest in itself.
In my reading, conversations and correspondence with editors and friends across the nation, I have learned that President Obama always promises that he will take care of any situation, but always fails to do so. All it has been is one lie after another to protect his main goal of taking our freedoms away from us, and he and his administration will go to any extent to do so!
Rev. Andrew Ranhosky
Obama failed to fix Iraq
As the opinion page editor, James Werrell has research access way beyond what the average person has. Therefore, I was taken aback by his rather vicious attack in his Friday column on the so-called “neocons’ over this nightmare in Iraq. There’s ample evidence to show this debacle has many fathers.
First, let me make one thing perfectly clear, I do not like, respect or admire George Bush. I feel he will be judged rather harshly by history. His incompetency in handling the economy and this disaster in Iraq will be his pitiful legacy.
But, Bush left office in 2008. That’s six years ago! President Obama has had ample time to plan and execute actions to control this situation, yet we still find ourselves leaving Iraq a lot worse than we found it. Any credible and truthful comment on Iraq should address Obama’s actions, or his lack of action.
When Bush went to war, he had a consensus from Congress to proceed. This consensus had neocons, moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats and a few “uberliberal’ Democrats. Remember John Kerry’s “I voted for the Iraq war before I voted against it”? Bill Clinton made many speeches talking about Saddam Hussein’s we4apons of mass destruction.
Trying to demonize the neocons while ignoring the roll that members of all political persuasions played may be accepted as gospel by some of your readers but I personally feel insulted by Werrell’s assumption that I am that ignorant of the political realities of today’s world.
Barack Obama will also be judged extremely harshly. Obama inherited a mess and turned it into a catastrophe, thus they are both losers.
What about Democrats?
James Werrell says disparagingly that “the current mess in Iraq is brought to you by the same wizards who got us into that tragic war to begin with.” Flashback to an earlier time: February 1998, then President Bill Clinton said that Saddam Hussein should turn over his weapons of mass destruction to the UN inspectors.
In October 2002, 29 of 50 Democratic senators, including Harry Reid, Diane Feinstein , Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Mary Landrieu, etc. voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. In Mr. Werrell’s commentary not a single Democrat was mentioned as one of the wizards!