Obama – Afghanistan Troop Build-Up Reported by CBS – Denied by White House – A Disconnect and Disservice to the Public.

"Obama's War in Afganistan - Image: whitewraithe wordpress

A CBS News report issued yesterday indicated “informed sources” suggested that the President would increase troop deployment to Afghanistan by up to 40,000 members. There are 68,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Afghanistan; General Stanley McChrystal, who was chosen by the administration to head the Afghan theater has requested up to 44,000 additional troops to deal with the increase in Taliban and Al Queda actions against U.S. forces. John Kerry, (D-MA), immediately opposed the Generals request, replaying his general opposition to deployment of military personnel. Kerry has been a prominent anti-war activist since his brief stint in Viet Nam and has been critical of any U.S. troop deployments, most recently the mission in Iraq. Kerry, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated in a recent speech that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's plan, which calls for 44,000 troops to carry out a counterinsurgency campaign, "reaches too far, too fast." (Washington Post).

Immediately following the CBS report, the White House issued a denial that Obama had made any decisions yet as to the level of troops he is willing to commit to Afghanistan. A national security advisor noted that reports of a decision by Obama regarding troop deployments were false. One interesting facet of that particular AP report is contained in a brief paragraph in the middle:

“After attending Tuesday's memorial service for the 13 killed in a shooting spree at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, Obama is due to meet his senior commanders on Wednesday again in the situation room to discuss Afghanistan. Analysis: More Fort Hoods possible.”

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, specifically Obama’s initial campaign promises to remove troops from Iraq and go into Afghanistan to take on Al Queda, including use of additional U.S. forces in that theater has been compared to Viet Nam on more than one occasion. The fact that the U.S. Military believes that there are “more Fort Hoods possible” is also troubling and should, perhaps, have been a separate headline. The overall impression is one of chaos, as far as the management and direction of what has become known as “Obama’s War”. It is questionable as to how the administration will handle both domestic terrorism (Al Queda linked) and the troop buildup in a country that no nation has ever successfully controlled.
As to the CBS News organization, which has issued reports in the past without fully investigating the subject matter (see Dan Rather, former CBS anchor and reports on President Bush in 2005 which included falsified documents, that were not vetted by the news organizations.) either decided to issue a credible report, again “based on informed” sources, or they jumped the gun, and ran a story that had little credence or backing. That said, the White House issues denials of reports on a regular basis, so it is difficult for anyone that is sitting on the sidelines to determine what is taking place. White House communication director, Anita Dunn, has stated that the Obama campaign and the administration “control the press” which, leaves little room for error on the part of journalists walking the fine line between White House approval (access) or banishment (see Fox News boycott story on Huffington Post) should the administration be questioned. This leaves the general public in the dark regarding the War in Afghanistan, should news organizations decide to shut down and kowtow to the administration.

Regardless, the fact that large numbers of troops are being considered for deployment, in a theater that is historically unmanageable, with the concept of phasing in troops over a period of time (see Viet Nam, War of Attrition) could lead to an eventual draft, once volunteer forces become exhausted. In this instance, Senator Kerry’s hesitant stance may be justified. The current administrations inattention to historical boondoggles of the past, (see Carter), have led to economic woes, and the addition of a “Viet Nam” is not out of the question. The “excuse” that both the economic problems facing the county and the War in Afghanistan are merely leftovers (so to speak) from the Bush Administration, is beginning to wear thin. It is growing more obvious by the day, that throwing money (stimulus after stimulus) and adding taxes to corporations, does little to improve the economy – in fact, as the unemployment rates tops 10%, those tax cuts to “the evil corporations”, may induce them to actually hire and build in the United States. Additionally, Bush’s strategy to engage terrorists organizations in Iraq, build the Iraqi security forces, and eventually hand security over to the Iraqi government, appeared to be working. It is now apparent that withdrawal from that theater, only increased violence in Iraq, and Al Queda and the Taliban grew stronger in Afghanistan. Additionally, we are now faced with domestic terrorism in the United States, from Fort Hood to the latest plans to attack shopping malls in Boston. The problem seems to be, at the present time, a disconnect between the White House, History and the Press.

John Kerry - Desperation Over Debates!

Brigid O’Rourke, spoke model for John F. Kerry, (D-MA) has her hands full lately. Last week she was assailing Jeff Beatty,(R-MA)candidate for U.S. Senate. due to his calling John Kerry an opportunist - today it was Ed O’Reilly, (D) Kerry’s first Senate challenger in 24 years that has Brigid somewhat upset. Apparently, Ed O’Reilly is guilty of telling the truth – something that Brigid might not be used to hearing. O’Reilly noted in a television appearance that Kerry was “ducking debates” with him, to which O’Rourke replied: “O'Reilly's charges are a "cheap ploy" intended for "character assassination." Further, "You know this fella's blatant lies are getting as old as his campaign is desperate."
Brigid contends that it is O’Reilly not John Kerry who is in no hurry to debate. Understandably, the Kerry Campaign must make charges against both Beatty and O’Reilly – regardless of any basis in fact. Simply stated, the Junior Senator is under siege from both the right and the left!

The truth of the matter - Mr. O’Reilly has left a “newspaper trail” that is impressive and, from Worcester to Washington, no one is buying the fact that Kerry is willing to debate. Additionally, O'Reilly is running a campaign that is statewide - having offices out in Western Massachusetts no less. The Junior Senator doesn't even have a post office box west of Boston.

A sampling of articles supporting Mr. O’Reilly follows:

On July 29 >The Berkshire Eagle Tribune reported: “In a letter sent to Kerry, O'Reilly asked for 23 debates — a combination of public forums and television appearances — between now and the Sept. 16 primary. No schedule has been established, and with the primary closing in, O'Reilly wants to get moving."He has to come back to Massachusetts and debate the issues," O'Reilly said. Kerry, first elected in 1984, doesn't share O'Reilly's urgency. Roger Lau, his campaign manager, said the senator can't agree to a schedule until he knows when the Senate will recess. While an August recess is planned, it's possible the Senate will work into the month to finish its business.”

August 18th, News IN Brief “Kerry may not debate challenger"
WORCESTER. Sen. John Kerry says he has instructed his campaign manager to discuss the “modalities” of a debate with his re-election challenger but he’s not necessarily going to debate fellow Democrat Edward O’Reilly.
Kerry says Senate business and his own statewide campaign schedule have kept him from taking up O’Reilly’s initial challenge for 23 debates.
Now, with less than a month until the Sept. 16 primary, Kerry says his campaign manager will have to see if he can negotiate any agreement with the Gloucester attorney."

Google O’Reilly Debate Kerry and the evidence is overwhelming.The headlines say as much as the articles:

August 7 Newbury Port News: ”Kerry shouldn't shy away from debates”

And on August 19, Real Clear Politics “Why Kerry Won’t Debate” (Not particularly complementary towards the Junior Senator.)

This begs the questions: Just who is desperate?” and “Who’s guilty of character assassination?” Hopefully, O’Rourke has a mirror handy. The simple truth is that for the past month, the media has been reporting on Ed O'Reilly's calls for a debate, including the Boston Globe. Also, the NRNC has a nifty anti-Kerry ad. Suddenly, the Junior Senator is paying attention and crying foul! Could it be that once Biden got the call for V.P. (Democrats can lay that at Kerry's doorstep as well, his former campaign team now advising Obama), Kerry understood he might actually be out of job come November.

Kerry - Not VP - Agrees to Debate Senate Challenger, Ed O'Reilly

The Boston Herald is reporting today that John Kerry has agreed to debate his Democrat Challenger, Ed O'Reilly. Kerry had previously declined due to his heavy schedule. The agreement came, coincidentally, the same day that Obama made his final decision on a running mate. Articles from newspapers across the Baystate, including the Boston Globe, have taken to inserting "if" when referring to Kerry running against the Republican challenger, Jeff Beatty. Beatty, a distinguished veteran, (Link to citations, commendations and medal) has recently drawn attention to Kerry's use of U.S. veterans towards his own political gain.

Ed O'Reilly, Kerry's challenger, has been highly visible, in the Baystate media in the past few weeks, calling on Kerry to debate. O'Reilly for Senate signs can be found on roadways from Framingham to the Berkshires in growing numbers.

Although Rasmussen continues to give Kerry a 99.9% chance of holding onto his seat, Kerry's lead over Beatty is decreasing each month - polls which have not, to date, included Kerry's Democrat rival. Alternately, The Suffolk University Poll taken in June, indicated that 51% of the states electorate preferred someone other than Kerry - neither Beatty or O'Reilly were included in the poll. With that in mind, there may not be an incumbent in the 2004 Massachusetts Senate Race.

John Kerry – Not protecting his Bay State Seat - Is he Obama’s Choice?

John Kerry (D-MA) should be taking his bid for re-election a bit more seriously – given that he is faced with worrisome polls (Suffolk University Poll), a stronger than anticipated primary challenger (Ed O’Reilly) and a stronger GOP Opposition Candidate (Jeff Beatty). Additionally, the Bay States Newspapers normally Kerry committed editorial slant is taking a turn - in the opposite direction. Even the Boston Globe has questioned why John Kerry does not have the time to debate his Primary Challenger. In an article entitled “Kerry is Debatable”,
the Globe asks why Kerry has time to debate for Barrack Obama, yet, does not take the time out at home – noting: “the people of Massachusetts deserve a debate before the Sept. 16 primary.”

Perhaps it is arrogance, or perhaps Kerry has managed to obtain a position elsewhere. With the V.P. rumor mill churning, Huffington Post contributors weigh in on why Kerry would be the best choice for Obama as a running mate. - they make a compelling case – include the fact that Kerry’s deep ties to Obama are undisputable.

Today, or tomorrow, Obama will reveal his choice as running mate – if it is not John Kerry, will he then turn his attention to his own seat, or will he continue to stump for his chosen candidate? It appears the junior senator basks in the national spotlight; chances are his constituents will be treated to a barrage of advertising and mailboxes stuffed with re-elect Kerry literature – with a stop or two in each district hobnobbing with local Democrat politicos. Time is running out (Primary set for September 16), however, and although there is a Kerry Campaign ad, they aren’t playing statewide – what is showing up are banners for both Ed O’Reilly and Jeff Beatty, both of whom are receiving state press on an almost daily basis.

Therefore the questions remain, is Kerry the V.P. choice that will be announced today, or tomorrow by Obama? Or is he so arrogantly confident that he will retain his seat he isn’t bothering to protect it. The Massachusetts primary will be telling, as polls can, admittedly be deceiving due to small samples and the general make-up of the state. That said - given the electorate makeup: 30+% Democrat, 12+% Republican and 51+% Unenrolled – should half the Unenrolleds vote in the primary for O’Reilly, (assuming half will take a Democrat ballot), and 23% (or the percentage of votes that O’Reilly received in the primary) of Democrats vote the same way, Kerry won’t have to worry about dodging debates in the Bay State.

John Kerry Faces Massachusetts “Operation Chaos”

John Kerry, junior Senator, Democrat, Massachusetts has been receiving a bit of local (state) press lately, most of which is questioning his unwillingness to debate his primary challenger, Ed O’Reilly. For whatever the reason, Kerry is reluctant to commit to debate his opponent prior to the state primary. (Springfield Republican). In recent weeks, Kerry’s name has been thrown out as a possible Obama V.P., which may be why he hesitates, or it could be his prior debate performances that have him reluctant to enter that venue once again. Either way, O’Reilly is getting attention.

Yesterday, during the 3:30-4:00 pm radio segment of the Howie Carr show, a caller suggested that those independent and Republican voters in the Massachusetts change affiliation, and vote for Ed O’Reilly in order to unseat John Kerry (frankly, most likely unnecessary given Kerry’s appeal to Democrats in the state), in other words an “Operation Chaos” (See Rush Limbaugh). Carr replied that he (paraphrasing) fully endorsed that plan.
Herein lies the problem with that type of scheme; if one is truly interested in supporting a specific candidate and has every intention of voting for that candidate in the general election (Jeff Beatty, Republican for Senate, Massachusetts), then casting a vote, even during the primary for the “opposition” reinforces the notion (mainly perpetrated by the DNC and the press) that Massachusetts is a “lost cause” for the RNC. In other words, it downplays the facts that the polls show ever increasing support for Beatty and that the state’s electorate is overwhelmingly not – Democrat. Over 50 percent of the states electorate is Unenrolled and those unenrolled voters lean both ways – but for the most part are moderate. Kerry has held his seat for 24 years simply because there were no other choices. This year is different – having opposition from within his own party will do enough damage to his already weakened position (Suffolk University Polls), in the state, and should he survive the primary, he will be up against an impressive Beatty organization. If there were no opposition other than O’Reilly for Massachusetts Republicans and Independents to cast their vote to oust Kerry, fine and good, however, that is not the case. Those on both sides of the aisle as well as those Unenrolled who feel more closely aligned with one party over another, in this state have a unique opportunity to send a message of change this year. One should go to the primary and vote their general election choice; this gives ones candidate a bit of extra ammunition, having integrity and conviction when casting a vote, rather than subversion in mind.