In Bill We Trust?

I think in this upcoming election it will be important for me as a voter to sift through a bunch of the hogwash that our media throws in to the mix. As most of us know there are several important issues that our candidates have to address. Most responsible Americans know that our economy may be going into a recession, the cost of oil has skyrocketed, and the war in Iraq seems to be a plague that is going to haunt us like Vietnam has. It is interesting to see where our candidates stand on most of our issues, but my biggest issue is where their stance has been and will be in regards to Iraq.

Bill Clinton announced recently that he had always opposed the war, but where does his wife stand? When we invaded Iraq she was more than willing to put her vote for yes. Now since she is one of the top GOP candidates she has claimed that she was misled by Bush. She doesn't support the war anymore, even though she did then. I don't buy it.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe that she whole hearted wants to get our troops out of Iraq, but I think she should have said that from the start. If I were to vote for someone, which I will (once I figure out who the best candidate is), I will vote for someone who as a senator or public official whose life has been on public display for at least ten years and has integrity. I think that a leader should display many virtues, but integrity is the most important. I don't want the U.S. to be "misled" like we have been in the past.

In Response

In response to Sarah Kay's blog I would like to offer you a couple of constructive criticisms (not to be confused with arguing or unabashedly demoralizing your point of view). You open with what in my eyes could be a very good start to a strong argument ("The United States national government is viewed as the most powerful nation in the world, the best off. But what did it really take to get there? Manipulation."), but you fail to provide any substantial evidence for your statements. The evidence that you do provide, like when you say that leaders have made and broken many promises, lacks detail. I feel that leaving out these important details can leave a reader asking many questions about where you reference your material.

The second paragraph is opened with another bold statement that the governments problem solving skill are black and white, in my eyes leaving the reader wanting to know more about what makes the government black and white in there problem solving skills. Then a question is asked "What do we do about immigration?", but after the question is asked it is then left open. If I may clarify by what I mean by open; I mean that the lines following the question aren't facts referenced from any thing, but they seem to be broad over generalizations about what the government has proposed to do about immigration.

The final two paragraphs don't do the job of clarifying your point. It can be said that America is a great place to live and that we are not "all bad", but I don't believe that was the point of your editorial.

So what do I suggest? Well I would suggest clarifying your points, having substantial evidence to back your points up and then try concluding your blog with one statement that can tie everything together.

Bush Squanders Rights of Citizens

The Constitution gives rights to foreigners that are living in the United States legally. Well, not according to our lovely President. In 2001, after September 11, President Bush miraculously granted himself the right to detain any person that was considered an enemy combatant of the United States. When Congress allowed the attack on Afghanistan, President Bush saw it as a golden opportunity to squander the rights of American citizens and he put a nice clean label on it too. The war on terror as most of us know it has (supposedly) given the President the right to violate the Constitution. What do I mean?

In short President Bush can and has detained two people on the American mainland Jose Padilla and Ali Al-Mari, labeled them enemy combatants and threw them in military detention. I do believe that the sixth Amendment gives the right to a public and speedy trial where the defendant can have counsel and argue his case, but not in this case. The imprisoned Mari was held "incommunicado" for 16 months then finally he was given the right to a lawyer. The only problem he still is not in a civilian court. Nor is the trial public. Wow what is going on with our government these days?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/us/01combatant.html?ref=us