By James Jay Carafano Ph.D
Heritage Foundation
For the second time in recent years, the United States has witnessed another wake-up call for the importance of fielding directed-energy weapons capable of shooting-down mortar and artillery fire, as well as intercepting short-range rockets and missiles.The Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Congress need to place more emphasis on fielding working prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible.
People as Targets
Terrorism continues to be the scourge of the 21st century, but the age of conventional wars is far from over. In recent years we have had plenty examples where both means of warfare have employed conventional weapons to target civilians. Specifically, indirect fire weapons from mortars to short-range missiles have been directly targeted against innocents or employed against military targets in urban areas, putting civilian populations at risk. Terrorists in North Africa attempted to shoot down a commercial airliner with a short-range surface-to-air missile. In Iraq, insurgent groups used mortars to fire on administrative buildings, as well as military facilities in Baghdad and other urban areas.
Even more troubling, however, is the use of these conventional weapons in combat zones aimed at the heart of civilian populations. In the 2006 battles between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hezbollah's Katyusha rocket attacks killed and wounded dozens of Israelis, destroyed property, and sent thousands to bomb shelters. The rain of rockets threatened to spark a larger regional conflict.
Another Rage of Rockets
The Russian incursion into Georgia last week saw the use of rockets in urban areas by both sides. According to reports in The New York Times, Georgia fired BM-21 rockets, a system similar to the Katyusha, at separatist military headquarters. Although the rockets appear to have been aimed at legitimate targets, the risk of damage to the surrounding civilian community from these inaccurate weapons may have been high. According to other press and eyewitness reports, during the massive Russian military offensive, ground troops fired dozens of SS-21s, a short-range ballistic missile that can carry a high-explosive warhead. It is not clear whether these weapons were fired at legitimate military targets. In addition, the large SS 21 high-explosive warhead can carry either fragmentation bombs or mines making the risk of civilian causalities in urban areas very high.
The Promise of Directed Energy
Despite repeated warning signs that both unconventional and conventional combatants have no problem using the weapons of war to target both military and civilian populations, the United States has shown little sense of urgency in developing effective countermeasures for either equipping military forces or safeguarding civilian populations.
Directed energy weapons, such as the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL), demonstrate tremendous potential against all kinds of mortar, artillery, rocket, aircraft, and missile threats. Directed energy can be used against short-range threats like the Katyusha rockets being fired at Israel and against ballistic missiles like the SS-21s fired at Georgia. Such systems could also be used for homeland security, such as protecting critical infrastructure, national security events (such as the presidential nominating conventions) and commercial air traffic from terrorist attack.
Concluding that the THEL was not sufficiently mobile and robust for battlefield use, the U.S. Army decided to forgo its full development. Meanwhile, though the Department of Homeland Security has experimented with some systems to defend commercial flights against surface-to-air missiles, it too has not deployed any operational systems.
The Clock Is Ticking
Rather than deploy the THEL, the national security community has turned to a new generation of lasers for developing suitable directed-energy protective systems. These lasers employ a solid-state technology, incorporating multiple industrial thin disk lasers into a single high-powered energy devise. The military is currently developing prototypes for a mobile version of this system.
Congress should insist and the administration should press to field operational prototypes of these systems as quickly as possible for both defense and homeland security applications. Both land-based and air-based platforms (mounted on manned and unmanned aircraft) should be fielded as soon as possible. Putting a system in the field now would provide some limited operational capability and invaluable operational experience on how to use these systems.
Courtesy of Heritage Foundation, read more at www.heritage.org
Showing posts with label Heritage Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heritage Foundation. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Congress Must Stop Playing Politics with FISA and National Security
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Robert Alt and Andrew Grossman
January 31, 2008
WebMemo #1791
This week, Congress passed a 15-day extension of the Protect America Act, just two days before the law was set to expire, so that House Democrats could leave Washington for a party retreat. The Protect America Act updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to exempt surveillance of communications between persons located outside of the United States when the communications happen to pass through domestic networks, a type of communications to which Congress never intended FISA to apply. A 15-day extension is not good enough, because it puts intelligence-gatherers in an impossible situation: They must either try to guess what sort of legislation Congress will pass and act accordingly or assume that FISA will apply and begin the arduous task--at the cost of hundreds of hours of work per FISA application and potentially weeks or months of delay--of bringing this surveillance within the FISA regime. Congress must make the authorities in the Protect America Act permanent and, to further aid intelligence-gathering cooperation, enhance its provisions to provide retroactive and permanent liability protection to American businesses that cooperate with reasonable intelligence requests.
Playing Politics with Security
The U.S. government has publicly acknowledged thwarting over 19 terrorist conspiracies aimed at the United States since September 11, 2001. Covert intelligence and surveillance have likely stymied even more threats. These results have been achieved using, in part, surveillance and investigatory powers under the Patriot Act and tools like the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The Protect America Act was intended to strengthen and clarify civil liberty protections under the TSP and to ensure that the program remained an effective instrument for terrorist surveillance.
When Congress passed the Protect America Act last spring, it set the bill to expire in six months. That "compromise" was driven by politics. On the one hand, it allowed Members of Congress to dodge criticism of allowing statutory authorities for critical counterterrorism tools to lapse, and on the other, it allowed them to put off having to make difficult policy decisions that could offend critics of the Administration and the TSP. The bill just passed by Congress does more of the same, stretching out the debate while trying to give lawmakers cover from criticism that their inaction is undermining counterterrorism efforts.
Extending the statutory authorities in the Protect America Act would not be controversial but for politics. This particular debate, in fact, is only a recent one. The Protect America Act was intended to correct an erroneous FISA Court decision seeking to extend that court's power to control foreign surveillance that was never intended to be covered under FISA and never had been. The decision was based, according to those who have seen it, on the irrelevant details of recent changes in technology that do not implicate the core concerns behind FISA. Congress never intended FISA to apply to wholly international communications that do not involve persons in the United States, but instead recognized that surveillance of wholly international communications is an inherent power of the President and part of his solemn responsibility to protect America's security. Permanent extension of this authority simply returns FISA to the status quo before the erroneous court decision, thereby allowing vital and uncontroversial intelligence work to continue unabated.
No Free Lunch
Passing temporary extensions of the Protect America Act, however, makes Americans less safe than providing permanent authority. Serious counterterrorism investigations can take years. They can consume vast amounts of manpower and resources. Creating uncertainty over what authorities will be available in the future greatly complicates the task of the intelligence services and the telecommunications industries that must cooperate with them to make their efforts efficient and effective. The longer Congress drags out and leaves unsettled this vital issue, the more it hamstrings effective long-term planning and complicates decisions about future operations. Thus, American security does pay a price every time Congress kicks the can down the road.
The risks to national security of bringing communications between persons located outside of the United States that happen to pass through domestic networks inside the FISA process are great. Just preparing to present an application to the FISA Court, which grants orders for classified surveillance programs, takes hundreds of hours of lawyer and intelligence analyst time. Though critics are quick to point out that the FISA Court rejects few applications, this is due to the immense time and effort Justice Department officials dedicate to preparing FISA applications, which are over 100 pages on average, and the back-and-fourth process entailed in FISA Court review. Potentially delaying crucial foreign intelligence-gathering operations by weeks or months, as temporary extensions threaten to do, simply endangers national security. This is particularly distressing when there is no legitimate purpose other than political gamesmanship for doing so.
Inconsistency and uncertainty with respect to legal authorities put national security at risk. As documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and the Department of Justice's Bellows Report, the legal authorities behind FISA and foreign surveillance in general are extremely complicated, frequently leading to confusion and mistakes. Intelligence officials work hard to stay within the bounds of the law, and when the law is unclear or uncertain, they become even more conservative, denying some surveillance requests that would be legal and requiring more time to approve others that fall well within the law. In some cases, confusion may cause agents in the field to avoid requesting important surveillance altogether. When Congress leaves the law unclear, it directly harms national security.
Stop the Insanity
It is time for Congress to stop playing politics with national security and pass sensible legislation that meets the needs of those who protect the country from attack while upholding Americans' civil liberties. The Protect America Act accomplished these crucial goals.
First, its major provision concerns persons not on U.S. soil. Constitutional protections were never intended to extend to cover wholly foreign intelligence gathering for national security purposes. Further, this surveillance relies on the same minimization procedures that have always applied to reduce the intrusion on the privacy interests of Americans who (whether wittingly or unwittingly) communicate with suspected terrorists or other enemy soldiers.
The act also wisely extended prospective immunity to communications providers that have worked with U.S. intelligence services to facilitate intelligence gathering for national security. With 40 or more civil lawsuits already filed against these providers for their cooperation,
Congress should take the logical, fair step and provide retroactive immunity as well.
The bill ultimately should go further and expressly authorize the President to use his constitutional authority to conduct the intelligence gathering at home and abroad necessary to protect America from future terrorist attacks. That, however, is most likely a debate for another day. For now, Congress should make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent and let the government get back to the business of stopping terrorists before they attack.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Robert Alt is Deputy Director of, and Andrew M. Grossman is Senior Legal Policy Analyst in, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, find this and other articles at www.heritage.org
January 31, 2008
WebMemo #1791
This week, Congress passed a 15-day extension of the Protect America Act, just two days before the law was set to expire, so that House Democrats could leave Washington for a party retreat. The Protect America Act updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to exempt surveillance of communications between persons located outside of the United States when the communications happen to pass through domestic networks, a type of communications to which Congress never intended FISA to apply. A 15-day extension is not good enough, because it puts intelligence-gatherers in an impossible situation: They must either try to guess what sort of legislation Congress will pass and act accordingly or assume that FISA will apply and begin the arduous task--at the cost of hundreds of hours of work per FISA application and potentially weeks or months of delay--of bringing this surveillance within the FISA regime. Congress must make the authorities in the Protect America Act permanent and, to further aid intelligence-gathering cooperation, enhance its provisions to provide retroactive and permanent liability protection to American businesses that cooperate with reasonable intelligence requests.
Playing Politics with Security
The U.S. government has publicly acknowledged thwarting over 19 terrorist conspiracies aimed at the United States since September 11, 2001. Covert intelligence and surveillance have likely stymied even more threats. These results have been achieved using, in part, surveillance and investigatory powers under the Patriot Act and tools like the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The Protect America Act was intended to strengthen and clarify civil liberty protections under the TSP and to ensure that the program remained an effective instrument for terrorist surveillance.
When Congress passed the Protect America Act last spring, it set the bill to expire in six months. That "compromise" was driven by politics. On the one hand, it allowed Members of Congress to dodge criticism of allowing statutory authorities for critical counterterrorism tools to lapse, and on the other, it allowed them to put off having to make difficult policy decisions that could offend critics of the Administration and the TSP. The bill just passed by Congress does more of the same, stretching out the debate while trying to give lawmakers cover from criticism that their inaction is undermining counterterrorism efforts.
Extending the statutory authorities in the Protect America Act would not be controversial but for politics. This particular debate, in fact, is only a recent one. The Protect America Act was intended to correct an erroneous FISA Court decision seeking to extend that court's power to control foreign surveillance that was never intended to be covered under FISA and never had been. The decision was based, according to those who have seen it, on the irrelevant details of recent changes in technology that do not implicate the core concerns behind FISA. Congress never intended FISA to apply to wholly international communications that do not involve persons in the United States, but instead recognized that surveillance of wholly international communications is an inherent power of the President and part of his solemn responsibility to protect America's security. Permanent extension of this authority simply returns FISA to the status quo before the erroneous court decision, thereby allowing vital and uncontroversial intelligence work to continue unabated.
No Free Lunch
Passing temporary extensions of the Protect America Act, however, makes Americans less safe than providing permanent authority. Serious counterterrorism investigations can take years. They can consume vast amounts of manpower and resources. Creating uncertainty over what authorities will be available in the future greatly complicates the task of the intelligence services and the telecommunications industries that must cooperate with them to make their efforts efficient and effective. The longer Congress drags out and leaves unsettled this vital issue, the more it hamstrings effective long-term planning and complicates decisions about future operations. Thus, American security does pay a price every time Congress kicks the can down the road.
The risks to national security of bringing communications between persons located outside of the United States that happen to pass through domestic networks inside the FISA process are great. Just preparing to present an application to the FISA Court, which grants orders for classified surveillance programs, takes hundreds of hours of lawyer and intelligence analyst time. Though critics are quick to point out that the FISA Court rejects few applications, this is due to the immense time and effort Justice Department officials dedicate to preparing FISA applications, which are over 100 pages on average, and the back-and-fourth process entailed in FISA Court review. Potentially delaying crucial foreign intelligence-gathering operations by weeks or months, as temporary extensions threaten to do, simply endangers national security. This is particularly distressing when there is no legitimate purpose other than political gamesmanship for doing so.
Inconsistency and uncertainty with respect to legal authorities put national security at risk. As documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and the Department of Justice's Bellows Report, the legal authorities behind FISA and foreign surveillance in general are extremely complicated, frequently leading to confusion and mistakes. Intelligence officials work hard to stay within the bounds of the law, and when the law is unclear or uncertain, they become even more conservative, denying some surveillance requests that would be legal and requiring more time to approve others that fall well within the law. In some cases, confusion may cause agents in the field to avoid requesting important surveillance altogether. When Congress leaves the law unclear, it directly harms national security.
Stop the Insanity
It is time for Congress to stop playing politics with national security and pass sensible legislation that meets the needs of those who protect the country from attack while upholding Americans' civil liberties. The Protect America Act accomplished these crucial goals.
First, its major provision concerns persons not on U.S. soil. Constitutional protections were never intended to extend to cover wholly foreign intelligence gathering for national security purposes. Further, this surveillance relies on the same minimization procedures that have always applied to reduce the intrusion on the privacy interests of Americans who (whether wittingly or unwittingly) communicate with suspected terrorists or other enemy soldiers.
The act also wisely extended prospective immunity to communications providers that have worked with U.S. intelligence services to facilitate intelligence gathering for national security. With 40 or more civil lawsuits already filed against these providers for their cooperation,
Congress should take the logical, fair step and provide retroactive immunity as well.
The bill ultimately should go further and expressly authorize the President to use his constitutional authority to conduct the intelligence gathering at home and abroad necessary to protect America from future terrorist attacks. That, however, is most likely a debate for another day. For now, Congress should make the provisions of the Protect America Act permanent and let the government get back to the business of stopping terrorists before they attack.
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Robert Alt is Deputy Director of, and Andrew M. Grossman is Senior Legal Policy Analyst in, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, find this and other articles at www.heritage.org
Friday, January 18, 2008
Why Tax Rate Reductions Are More Stimulative Than Rebates: Lessons from 2001 and 2003
January 18, 2008
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1776
With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with economic stimulus proposals centered on tax rebates. Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
Tax Rebates Don't Stimulate
By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.
Economic growth requires four main factors: (1) an educated, trained, and motivated workforce; (2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; (3) a solid infrastructure; and (4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts and contain a functioning price system.
High tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it less profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.
By contrast, tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create any new wealth.
Supporters of rebates argue that they "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)
Supporters of rebates respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality it is more responsible to let the savers keep that money for a new home or their children's education, rather than to have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy.
Simply put, low tax rates encourage working, saving, and investing, which in turn encourages job creation and wage growth. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth.
The Failed 2001 Tax Rebates
While the 2001 tax cuts reduced some marginal tax rates, the centerpiece was tax rebates. These rebates were rationalized as a pre-payment of the reduction of the lowest marginal income tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent. Yet because they were not based on encouraging productive behavior, the rebates had little economic impact.
In the spring and summer of 2001, Washington borrowed billions from the capital/investment markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. In the fourth quarter of that year, consumer spending responded with 7 percent annualized growth, and investment spending correspondingly decreased by 23 percent. The economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent annualized rate.[1] The simple redistribution from investment to consumption did not create new wealth.
All traces of the rebate policy effectively disappeared by the next quarter. Consumer spending retreated to 1.4 percent annualized growth, and investment spending partially recovered from its steep decline with a 13.6 percent annual growth. The economy remained stagnant through much of 2002.
The Successful 2003 Tax Rate Cuts
By contrast, the 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #1776
With slower economic growth raising fears of a recession, Washington is abuzz with economic stimulus proposals centered on tax rebates. Tax rebates, however, don't stimulate the economy. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
Tax Rebates Don't Stimulate
By definition, an economy grows when it produces more goods and services than it did the year before. In 2007, Americans produced $13 trillion worth of goods and services, up 3 percent over 2006.
Economic growth requires four main factors: (1) an educated, trained, and motivated workforce; (2) sufficient levels of capital equipment and technology; (3) a solid infrastructure; and (4) a legal system and rule of law sufficient to enforce contracts and contain a functioning price system.
High tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it less profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower corporate and investment taxes encourage the savings and investment vital to producing more and better plants, equipment, and technology.
By contrast, tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create any new wealth.
Supporters of rebates argue that they "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. But every dollar that government rebates "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. (Even money borrowed from foreigners brings a reduction in net exports.)
Supporters of rebates respond that redistributing money from "savers" to "spenders" will lead to additional spending. That assumes that savers store their savings in mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (which finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which quickly lend it to others to spend). Therefore, the money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved. Given that reality it is more responsible to let the savers keep that money for a new home or their children's education, rather than to have Washington redistribute it to someone else to spend at Best Buy.
Simply put, low tax rates encourage working, saving, and investing, which in turn encourages job creation and wage growth. Tax rebates merely redistribute existing wealth.
The Failed 2001 Tax Rebates
While the 2001 tax cuts reduced some marginal tax rates, the centerpiece was tax rebates. These rebates were rationalized as a pre-payment of the reduction of the lowest marginal income tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent. Yet because they were not based on encouraging productive behavior, the rebates had little economic impact.
In the spring and summer of 2001, Washington borrowed billions from the capital/investment markets, and then mailed it to families in the form of $600 checks. In the fourth quarter of that year, consumer spending responded with 7 percent annualized growth, and investment spending correspondingly decreased by 23 percent. The economy grew at a sluggish 1.6 percent annualized rate.[1] The simple redistribution from investment to consumption did not create new wealth.
All traces of the rebate policy effectively disappeared by the next quarter. Consumer spending retreated to 1.4 percent annualized growth, and investment spending partially recovered from its steep decline with a 13.6 percent annual growth. The economy remained stagnant through much of 2002.
The Successful 2003 Tax Rate Cuts
By contrast, the 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that the policies worked:
- GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
- Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
- The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
- The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs--and 5.3 million jobs over 13 quarters.[2]
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was occurring naturally, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
Conclusion
The 2003 tax rate cuts succeeded, because they increased incentives to work, save, and invest, thereby creating new wealth. The 2001 tax cuts, based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution, did not significantly increase economic growth. Lawmakers currently examining economic stimulus proposals should reject rebates in favor of tax rate reductions.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Table 1.1.1, at www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp (January 18, 2008).
[2]U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis, NIPA Tables, Table 1.1.1, revised, at www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp (January 16, 2007); Yahoo Finance, "S&P 500 Index," at www.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC (January 16, 2007); and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)," at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth (January 16, 2007).
Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation, find more articles at http://www.heritage.org/
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
President Bush Speech-November 1, 2007-Firing on All Cylinders
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=L._Winslow]L. Winslow
President Bush, his critics, and the divisive politics in Washington DC never stop. In November 1, 2007 President Bush delivered a hard hitting speech to the Heritage Foundation, one which was applauded by all true Americans. Republicans, saw the President in true form. He looked like he was back to his old self, hitting on all cylinders.
Republican Party supporters urged him to please keep up the great work and do more of those types of speeches. As all Americans know we are in a critical time and those who follow history understand all that is at stake, he is correct. Supporters ask that he Hang tough and concentrate, good things await and there are challenges are ahead.
Amongst the topics of the speech were issues of so-called definitions of torture and if the United States should use torture tactics on occasion with Al Queda International Terrorists who kill innocent civilians through bombings or by way of cutting off their heads. Should we be allowed to sprinkle water on their heads until they talk?
Opponents of the President's common sense on this issue claim that the United States of America, should not use the sprinkling of water on the heads of murderers and bombers who plot and plan to kill Americans or commit such acts. Most decent Americans wish to save American lives from the International Terrorist murdering thugs, unfortunately the President has some opposition to these reality based and rational methods.
In President Bush's excellent speech he brought home the realities of who we are dealing with and what must be done. As Americans we should support our Commander in Chief rather than supporting the wishes of Osama bin Laden and Al Queda, unfortunately the President's vocal opposition is aiding our enemies and that is putting the American People at severe risk. Think on this - it matters.
L. Winslow is an Economic, Political and Technology Advisor to the Online Think Tank, a Futurist and retired entrepreneur http://www.worldthinktank.net/ Currently Mr. Winslow is planning a bicycle ride from Canada to Mexico and in Spring across the US from San Diego to Virginia Beach to raise money for charity. Previously he was a track star athlete, private pilot, involved in politics, community volunteerism and a Franchising Founder. Mr. Winslow has chosen 100 titles of Books he wishes to write and has completed ten thus far. The subjects include; Community Planning, Future Tech, Franchising, Small Business, and Third World Issues.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=L._Winslow http://EzineArticles.com/?President-Bush-Speech---November-1,-2007---Firing-on-All-Cylinders&id=813441
President Bush, his critics, and the divisive politics in Washington DC never stop. In November 1, 2007 President Bush delivered a hard hitting speech to the Heritage Foundation, one which was applauded by all true Americans. Republicans, saw the President in true form. He looked like he was back to his old self, hitting on all cylinders.
Republican Party supporters urged him to please keep up the great work and do more of those types of speeches. As all Americans know we are in a critical time and those who follow history understand all that is at stake, he is correct. Supporters ask that he Hang tough and concentrate, good things await and there are challenges are ahead.
Amongst the topics of the speech were issues of so-called definitions of torture and if the United States should use torture tactics on occasion with Al Queda International Terrorists who kill innocent civilians through bombings or by way of cutting off their heads. Should we be allowed to sprinkle water on their heads until they talk?
Opponents of the President's common sense on this issue claim that the United States of America, should not use the sprinkling of water on the heads of murderers and bombers who plot and plan to kill Americans or commit such acts. Most decent Americans wish to save American lives from the International Terrorist murdering thugs, unfortunately the President has some opposition to these reality based and rational methods.
In President Bush's excellent speech he brought home the realities of who we are dealing with and what must be done. As Americans we should support our Commander in Chief rather than supporting the wishes of Osama bin Laden and Al Queda, unfortunately the President's vocal opposition is aiding our enemies and that is putting the American People at severe risk. Think on this - it matters.
L. Winslow is an Economic, Political and Technology Advisor to the Online Think Tank, a Futurist and retired entrepreneur http://www.worldthinktank.net/ Currently Mr. Winslow is planning a bicycle ride from Canada to Mexico and in Spring across the US from San Diego to Virginia Beach to raise money for charity. Previously he was a track star athlete, private pilot, involved in politics, community volunteerism and a Franchising Founder. Mr. Winslow has chosen 100 titles of Books he wishes to write and has completed ten thus far. The subjects include; Community Planning, Future Tech, Franchising, Small Business, and Third World Issues.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=L._Winslow http://EzineArticles.com/?President-Bush-Speech---November-1,-2007---Firing-on-All-Cylinders&id=813441
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
