Tuesday night, President Obama stated that he opposed the war in Iraq. In
practically the same breath, he said that he believed in the war in
Afghanistan, and, if he didn't, he would bring every troop home from
there tomorrow. By that standard, shouldn't he bring every troop home
from Iraq today, rather than by the end of 2011? Or are we to continue
throwing good money after bad for 2 more years?
He also announced that we would provide funding to "support Afghan
Ministries, Governors, and local leaders", that ineffective or corrupt
officials would be held accountable, and that our assistance would be
focused in areas that will make an "immediate impact" (the word he
should've used is "effect" not "impact") in the lives of the Afghan
people (he specifically mentioned agriculture).
I find it odd that President Obama realizes that, in order to
immediately effect the lives of the Afghan people, the Afghan economy
must be stimulated at the middle and the bottom, but did not come to
that same realization regarding his stimulus package here, preferring
to hand out billions to ineffective and corrupt banking and insurance
executives who have not, and will not, be held accountable. As for
U.S. agriculture, President Obama's only contribution has been an
endless stream of verbal manure which often begins with the phrase
"let me be clear."
Kevin Hargis