What's the right strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be blowing up in President Obama's face at the same time. This month has become the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Two insurgent attacks there have killed eight more U.S. troops, bringing the October death toll to 58. This follows two helicopter crashes yesterday that killed 14 Americans.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/27/art.baghdad.jpg caption="An Iraqi woman and her two little boys survey the damage after a suicide truck bomb struck in central Baghdad over the weekend. The near-simultaneous twin suicide vehicle bomb attacks were the deadliest in the violence-wracked country in over two years."]
President Obama is trying to decide whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He is scheduled to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday.
Here's something else for the president to consider: A foreign service officer and former Marine Corps captain who fought in Iraq has become the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the war in Afghanistan.
Matthew Hoh says he no longer knows why we're fighting; and he thinks the U.S. is asking its troops to die for what is a far-off civil war.
As for Iraq - those two weekend bombings in Baghdad killed at least 155 people, including 20 children, and wounded more than 500 others. Al Qaeda in Iraq has claimed responsibility for these attacks - the deadliest in that country in more than two years.
The bombing of government buildings in Iraq raises some serious questions about Iraq's security and the national elections planned for January. Earlier this week - President Obama repeated America's commitment to withdrawing our troops.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, what's the right strategy?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Lawmakers sticking "goodies" into health care bill for constituents?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to health care reform - it shouldn't be surprising that our lawmakers are up to their same old tricks. Bloomberg News reports that Senate Democrats are making exceptions to the health care legislation to benefit their constituents, trying to protect the people who keep them in office from measures that will actually pay for the more than $800 billion reform.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
Let someone else's constituents pay for it - right? For example, Majority Leader Harry Reid's home state of Nevada would get help with its Medicaid bills, seniors in Florida and New York would get extra Medicare benefits, and those in high-risk professions like firefighters or construction workers would get a break on the tax on expensive insurance plans.
Republicans say these provisions should be applied equally to all 50 states; they say the exceptions will "hurt the bill and raise the level of cynicism about Washington politics."
But Democrats are anything but contrite. Reid - whose job approval rating in his own state stands at a whopping 35 percent - says, "I make absolutely no apologies - none - for helping people in my state."
The language in the Senate finance bill is also so convoluted at some points that even congressional aides say they don't know what it means...
For example - When describing Medicare changes, those eligible for extra funds include retirees in "counties where the Medicare Advantage benchmark amount in 2011 is equal to the legacy urban floor amount." Who writes this crap?
Here’s my question to you: Should lawmakers be allowed to stick "goodies" into the health care bill for their constituents?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Transfer Gitmo detainees to Michigan maximum security prison?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
One of the first things Barack Obama did as president was promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by January 2010. With three months to go, here's a suggestion: The city council of Standish, Michigan has voted unanimously for a resolution that would move forward with the idea of transferring the Gitmo detainees to Standish Maximum Correctional Facility.
U.S. troopers are pictured inside an exercise yard at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base.
The state prison is scheduled to be shut down at the end of this month due to budget cuts; and officials are worried what the closure and lost jobs could do to the local economy.
The 19-year-old prison can hold up to 600 inmates. It's surrounded by 16-foot fences that are topped with razor wire and is monitored by five gun towers that overlook the interior and provide perimeter security.
This is a large maximum-security prison in very good condition and far from a major city. Should be perfect. Standish officials hope the move could bring as many as 600 new military and civilian jobs. And they sure could use those jobs in Michigan these days.
The state's governor and both U.S. senators are open to the idea as long as security concerns are addressed. Local officials say they expect to hear from the federal government in the next few weeks.
Meanwhile - as the January deadline ticks closer... the commander of Gitmo says he could clear all 200-plus prisoners with just 10 days notice from the White House.
Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. transfer Gitmo detainees to a Michigan maximum security prison?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Why are so many Americans worried Obama will try to ban gun sales?
Fearful that Obama's administration is quietly planning to introduce tough new restrictions on gun ownership and worried that the recession will trigger a crime wave, Americans are scrambling to stock up on guns and ammunition. (PHOTO CREDIT: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A majority of gun owners think Pres. Obama wants to ban gun sales.
A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of those who own a gun, 53 percent who have a gun in the household, and 41 percent of all Americans believe he will attempt to ban the sale of guns while he is president.
This concern is greater among Republicans and people living in the South and Midwest than among Democrats or those living on either coast.
It also helps explain the sharp increases in sales of guns and ammunition. There are reports that U.S. bullet-makers are working around the clock and still can't keep up with the demand for ammunition. Shooting ranges and gun dealers say they've never seen such shortages.
However, President Obama has never said - as a candidate or as president - that he intends to push for a ban of gun sales. The president has said that he believes in the Second Amendment and that "lawful gun owners have nothing to fear." In May, he signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
Nonetheless, gun rights advocates point to Mr. Obama's record as a state legislator and U.S. senator where he "voted for the most stringent forms of gun control."
They also surely remember that famous time during the campaign when the president spoke about small town people who are bitter and "cling to guns or religion."
This is an issue that speaks to millions of Americans. The U.S. is already the most heavily armed country in the world - with about 90 guns for every 100 citizens.
Here’s my question to you: Why are so many Americans worried President Obama will try to ban gun sales?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Federal gov't OKs medical marijuana. First step toward legalization?
Signs advertise medical marijuana prescriptions outside an evaluation clinic on Venice Beach in Los Angeles. (PHOTO CREDIT: MARK RALSTON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Public support for legalizing marijuana is at an all-time high - no pun intended.
And coincidentally, the Obama administration is easing up on the use of medical marijuana. The Justice Department now says pot-smoking patients and their authorized suppliers shouldn't be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow the drug for medicinal purposes.
Officials say it's not a good use of prosecutors' time... Although they say agents should pursue marijuana cases that involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.
Supporters say marijuana helps treat chronic pain, nausea and other illnesses... while critics say this move is a step backward in the fight against Mexican drug cartels.
14 states currently allow some use of marijuana for medical reasons. California is especially known for having pot shops everywhere.
A new Gallup poll shows support for legalizing marijuana has shot up in the last few years to 44 percent. 54 percent are opposed. Support for legalizing weed had been fixed at around 25 percent from the late 70s through the mid-90s.
Liberals and younger people are more likely to favor decriminalizing pot... no surprise there... while conservatives and seniors are more likely to be against it.
Gallup suggests that if public support continues growing at the same rate - the majority of Americans could favor legalizing the drug in the next few years. California voters may get to weigh in next year with a ballot initiative to legalize and tax marijuana as a revenue source.
Here’s my question to you:The federal government OKs medical marijuana. Is it the first step toward legalization?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
When should Pres. Obama stop blaming the Bush administration?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to Afghanistan, the Obama White House keeps pointing fingers at President Bush. Although the war is in its ninth year - they make it sound like things are back to square one.
Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel says President Obama is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side - a not-so-thinly-veiled reference to Obama's predecessor.
As President Obama continues to delay his decision whether to send as many as 40,000 more troops into battle - the latest excuse is the runoff election in Afghanistan - the tide is turning against the war here at home.
A new CNN-Opinion Research Corporation Poll shows 59 percent of Americans are opposed to sending more troops into Afghanistan...only 39 percent support sending troops - and 28 percent say we should withdraw all U.S. forces.
And, perhaps even more troubling for the current administration: 52 percent of those surveyed say Afghanistan has turned into another Vietnam-President Obama's Vietnam.
There's no doubt President Bush deserves a lot of the blame for the problems in Afghanistan. His decision to invade Iraq derailed America's mission there. But President Obama has been in office for nine months now and some days his administration acts like they just discovered we have troops in Afghanistan.
Here’s my question to you: At what point should President Obama stop blaming the Bush administration?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should health care reform contain a public option and be mandatory?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A majority of Americans supports two of the more controversial parts of health care reform: the public option and requiring everyone to buy insurance. A new Washington Post/ABC News Poll shows independents and seniors, both crucial groups, have warmed up to the idea of a public insurance option.
57 percent favor the public option and 56 percent support making it mandatory for all Americans to buy insurance - either through their employers, on their own, or through Medicare or Medicaid.
Here's the catch: There's even broader opposition to how to pay for all this. 61 percent are opposed to the proposed tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans.
And nearly 70 percent say they think any health care bill will increase the federal deficit... although almost half of those people say it would be worth it to grow the deficit in order to get health care reform.
If you're having trouble sleeping tonight, the Senate Finance Committee has posted its health care bill online - all 1,500 pages of it.
This Senate plan does not include a public option. But in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she'll continue to fight hard for the public option.
Republicans and some conservative Democrats are opposed - saying it will drive private insurers from the market and lead to a government takeover of health care.
Here’s my question to you: Should health care reform contain a public option and be mandatory for all Americans?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should healthy employees have lower insurance premiums?
Should healthy employees have lower insurance premiums? (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to health care reform, it could pay for workers to lose weight, stop smoking or lower their cholesterol.
The Washington Post reports the bills in the Senate include so-called "wellness incentives”, which may more than double the maximum penalties employers can charge workers who flunk medical evaluations.
This follows a trend among some companies that offer lower premiums to employees who don't smoke, complete health assessments, or meet goals for blood pressure, body mass or cholesterol.
Supporters say incentives like these can make people choose healthier lifestyles, but critics say this discriminates against pre-existing conditions. They say it could make health coverage too expensive for those more at risk for things like diabetes, heart disease or stroke.
Skyrocketing health care costs have left some wondering whether health insurance should be more like auto insurance – where good drivers get discounts and reckless ones pay more.
Meanwhile, it's open enrollment time at offices everywhere, and CNNmoney.com reports that employees will face "shockingly higher" health costs. Companies are increasing everything from deductibles to co-payments and employee out-of-pocket maximums.
Many employers are also moving from a co-pay, meaning a flat fee of anywhere from $10 to $35 per doctor visit, to a co-insurance model, where employees will pay a percentage of the total medical expense.
Companies are also offering fewer health plans, which may mean some people will be forced to switch doctors.
Here’s my question to you: Should healthy employees have lower insurance premiums?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is it a good strategy for the White House to go after Fox News?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/10/16/beck.dunn/art.dunn.gi.jpg
caption="White House communications director Anita Dunn has called Fox News an arm of the Republican Party."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Obama White House may have started another war it can't win.
On yesterday's Sunday talk shows - Senior Adviser David Axelrod said of Fox News, "It's not really news. It's pushing a point of view.” And he asked that other news organizations not treat Fox like it's news.
The president's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, also said Fox is "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."
This all started when White House communications director Anita Dunn called Fox an arm of the Republican Party and said the Obama administration would treat the cable news network as they would an "opponent."
Dunn is now in a dust-up with Fox News' Glenn Beck, concerning a speech where she quoted Communist leader Mao Tse Tung. Beck calls that "insanity."
There is also a January video of Ms. Dunn where she talks about how the Obama campaign controlled the news media. She says they went around the "filter" of the news media and spoke directly to the American people. Actually, a lot of the time they did.
Fox News says the White House "continues to declare war" on them instead of focusing on critical issues like jobs, health care and two wars.
And they have a point. It could be said that bickering with Fox News is a waste of valuable time and energy that could be better spent solving the nation's myriad problems.
Here’s my question to you: Is it a good strategy for the White House to go after Fox News?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should the balloon boy's parents face criminal prosecution?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US/10/19/balloon.boy.investigation/art.heene.sheriff.kdvr.jpg caption=" Should Richard and Mayumi Heene face criminal prosecution?"]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
They both went to acting school, but they weren't quite good enough to carry this off.
Police say balloon boy was a bust, a made-up story designed to get Richard and Mayumi Heene a reality TV show.
Using their sons as props in a poorly-produced one act play, it took a question from Wolf Blitzer to little six-year-old Falcon to expose the whole ruse. And when the family went on television to talk about it, little Falcon, who knew it was all a lie, got sick and threw up-twice. But that didn't stop the attention-starved Richard Heene from trying desperately to be noticed. Now he has been, but not the way he wanted.
Police say the investigation is still under way and charges are likely for several felonies: conspiracy, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and attempting to influence a public servant. There could also be a misdemeanor charge for filing a false police report.
The most serious charges carry a maximum sentence of six years in prison and a $500,000 fine. Federal charges are possible as well. Whatever it adds up to it isn't enough.
Authorities also want the taxpayers' money back that was spent on this wild goose chase. In addition to local police and first responders, the National Guard mobilized two helicopters in a rescue attempt.
A lawyer for the Heenes says they're not "running from the law" and if a warrant is issued they will turn themselves in.
Here’s my question to you: Should the balloon boy's parents face criminal prosecution?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments