Politicians, pundits must not meddle in military planning

Politicians, pundits must not meddle in military planning

I ran across a recent column by Cal Thomas in which he provides his usual droll drivel to muddy the waters on a subject. I noticed he was quick to absolve Dick Cheney for his use of “alternative interrogation” (waterboarding) regardless of where the individual who was involved was born. The same subject matter has been discussed regarding the use of drones.

Drones have become the “spy” of choice in our fervor to track terrorists or those who are responsible for tragedies against Americans as in Benghazi. Even Anwar Al Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico yet perpetrated offenses against America, was killed in a drone attack.

If any American commits any act against this country then he has forfeited his rights and should be treated as a traitor. The advice given in the movie “A Fistful of Dynamite” is, therefore, applicable to such terrorists: Duck, you sucker.

These individuals should be treated no differently than Nazi sympathizers in World War II. Heck, we had the same problem during the American Revolution with one Benedict Arnold, didn’t we?

What’s strange is that some pundits like Cal forgive the trespassers and condemn ideological nonbelievers for doing the same thing.

Does the NSA Listening Labyrinth (Dubya vs. Obama) ring a bell? Too many of our legislators and pundits forget the observation of Spaniard George Santayana: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

President Eisenhower did it after the French were slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu in the first Indochina War. JFK’s secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, just had to micro-manage the war instead of allowing Adm. Zumwalt and the Army generals to manage the action in Vietnam; Dubya and his allies just had to micromanage the illegal war in iraq.

The only president in history who did it right was daddy Bush who turned Operation Desert Storm over to his generals and then hid out in the White House with his mouth shut. Bravo.

It is a very sorry state as foreign policy and military “experts” provide comments to pundits to directly influence them in the distribution of news that is so vital to the interests of America and is generally based on old information.

It would be an honor to tell Cal Thomas this: Good luck on your retirement.

John Zordich, Youngstown

Canfield council’s record on charter changes: 0 hits, 4 errors

In the 2012 election, there were two charter amendments on the ballot placing term limits on Canfield City Council and the mayor. Council opposed both. Both passed.

In the 2013 election, there were two additional charter amendments on the ballot. One placed term limits on Canfield boards and commissions. The other permitted residents to comment on issues on the floor before a final vote on issues before any board or commission. Council opposed both. Both passed.

Since I worked to get these on the ballots I will confess to having mixed emotions. I am pleased that they passed. But, I ask, why did these have to be done this way? Is council really in touch with the realities of today? We have term limits for the president, the governor of Ohio and for state senators. Why wouldn’t council support term limits? Term limits are not new.

In regard to this year’s first charter amendment placing term limits on our boards and commissions, I would like to point out that these are “appointed” positions. They are not elected. The appointment process is fraught with opportunity for favoritism and reappointing incumbents. Of the 22 people on all the boards and commissions, eight have over 10 years, three over 20 years and 13 have more than one term. Term limits are appropriate. At the end of 2013, there will be six openings on the boards. Hopefully, there will be a good-faith effort to find candidates. In the past, the openings were not well publicized.

The second charter amendment on this year’s ballot had to do with residents being able to comment on an issue on the floor before a final vote in board meetings. Yes, comments are allowed at the beginning of a meeting or if you are on the agenda. But, as the meeting progresses, a resident may have a question or be able to add additional information. This is not allowed. Those who voted “no” apparently are willing to give up their right to voice their opinion.

I would like to point out that there was a third charter amendment submitted this year that was not allowed. Over 600 people signed the petition. This amendment, applied to city council, contained language permitting residents to speak before a final vote is taken. This is the same language that passed for boards and commissions. Some trumped-up reasoning was cited that it interfered with council rules. Proposed amendments are there to change the rules. The bottom line is that council is not interested in having residents participate in the decision- making process once an issue is on the floor. That has been their exclusive territory. What are they afraid of? The amendment contained protection against filibustering.

Council’s record on charter amendments over the last two years is no hits, four errors. Residents should be able to contribute to the decision-making process without the restriction of having to sign up before the meeting begins.

Frank A. Micchia, Canfield

Democrats’ worship of Obama resembles jihadist terrorist attack

There is no god but gov- ernment, and Obama is its prophet. That is the mantra of the Democratic Party, and you better learn it if you wish to keep your head.

The extremists in the Democratic Party have learned much from the Islamic terrorist movement, and, like their brethren, they demand that everyone convert to the religion of liberalism or be summarily destroyed.

The terroristic tendencies of the Democrat Party were never more evident than when it declared jihad on America and plowed Obamacare into the twin towers of liberty and freedom.

As the nation teetered and began to crumble, Democrats could be heard shrieking at the top of their lungs, “Government is great!” Lured on by the promise of 72 interns, they continue their suicide mission on every front.

Like Islamic jihadists, they do not tolerate criticism of their religion or the mocking of the Prophet Obama, and they have threatened annihilation on anyone who does.

The media, fully aware of the danger, have elected not to offer even the slightest criticism of government for fear of what will befall them.

Fortunately, there are some brave conservatives — Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to name two — who are not afraid to meet the Obamacare jihad head-on. They courageously expose government for the false god that it is, and they encourage others to do the same. But their actions are not without consequence. They have been assaulted mercilessly for what they have done by the extremists in the Democratic Party and their sleeper cells in the Republican Party.

Now the question is: What will you do? Will you fight the jihad to stop Obama-care and thwart the Democrat caliphate? Or will you close your eyes and solemnly chant: There is no god but government, and Obama is its prophet?

Joseph K. Waltenbaugh, New Castle, Pa.

Hillary for president? Who cares?

I see where Congressman Tim Ryan thinks Hillary Clinton would be an excellent president.

Well, Congressman Ryan, the election is still three years out. So at this point, what does it matter?

Dan List, Struthers