Category: America

Dems Soft on Terror? Taliban’s Top Commander Captured

Posted on by TL

"Less talk, more action," might be a motto for President Obama’s approach to the two wars he inherited from President Bush.

From the New York Times:

The Taliban’s top military commander was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials.

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder, and was a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials.

It was unclear whether he was talking, but the officials said his capture had provided a window into the Taliban and could lead to other senior officials. Most immediately, they hope he will provide the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed cleric who is the group’s spiritual leader.

Disclosure of Mullah Baradar’s capture came as American and Afghan forces were in the midst of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan.

No Mission Accomplished, for sure. But certainly a big move in Afghanistan.

Weekly Address: President Obama Pledges to Rein in Budget Deficits (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 30, 2010.

At this time last year, amidst headlines about banks on the verge of collapse and job losses of 700,000 a month, we received another troubling piece of news about our economy. Our economy was shrinking at an alarming rate – the largest six-month decline in 50 years. Our factories and farms were producing less; our businesses were selling less; and more job losses were on the horizon.

One year later, according to numbers released this past week, this trend has reversed itself. For the past six months, our economy has been growing again. And last quarter, it grew more quickly than at any time in the past six years.

This is a sign of progress. And it’s an affirmation of the difficult decisions we made last year to pull our financial system back from the brink and get our economy moving again.

But when so many people are still struggling – when one in ten Americans still can’t find work, and millions more are working harder and longer for less – our mission isn’t just to grow the economy. It’s to grow jobs for folks who want them, and ensure wages are rising for those who have them. It’s not just about improvements we see in quarterly statistics, but ones people feel in their daily lives – a bigger paycheck; more security; the ability to give your kids a decent shot in life and still have enough to retire one day yourself.

That’s why job creation will be our number one focus in 2010. We’ll put more Americans back to work rebuilding our infrastructure all across the country. And since the true engines of job creation are America’s businesses, I’ve proposed tax credits to help them hire new workers, raise wages, and invest in new plants and equipment. I also want to eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and help small businesses get the loans they need to open their doors and expand their operations.

But as we work to create jobs, it is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we’ve been accumulating for far too long – deficits that won’t just burden our children and grandchildren, but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates, and jeopardize our recovery right now.

There are certain core principles our families and businesses follow when they sit down to do their own budgets. They accept that they can’t get everything they want and focus on what they really need. They make tough decisions and sacrifice for their kids. They don’t spend what they don’t have, and they make do with what they’ve got.

It’s time their government did the same. That’s why I’m pleased that the Senate has just restored the pay-as-you-go law that was in place back in the 1990s. It’s no coincidence that we ended that decade with a $236 billion surplus. But then we did away with PAYGO – and we ended the next decade with a $1.3 trillion deficit. Reinstating this law will help get us back on track, ensuring that every time we spend, we find somewhere else to cut.

I’ve also proposed a spending freeze, so that as we increase investments in things we need, like job creation and middle class tax cuts – we cut spending on those we don’t, like tax cuts for oil companies and investment fund managers, and programs that are redundant, obsolete, or simply ineffective. Spending related to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected – and neither will national security – but all other discretionary government programs will.

Finally, I’ve called for a bi-partisan Fiscal Commission – a panel of Democrats and Republicans who would sit down and hammer out concrete deficit-reduction proposals by a certain deadline. Because we’ve heard plenty of talk and a lot of yelling on TV about deficits, and it’s now time to come together and make the painful choices we need to eliminate those deficits.

This past week, 53 Democrats and Republicans voted for this commission in the Senate. But it failed when seven Republicans who had co-sponsored this idea in the first place suddenly decided to vote against it.

Now, it’s one thing to have an honest difference of opinion about something. I will always respect those who take a principled stand for what they believe, even if I disagree with them.

But what I won’t accept is changing positions because it’s good politics. What I won’t accept is opposition for opposition’s sake. We cannot have a serious discussion and take meaningful action to create jobs and control our deficits if politicians just do what’s necessary to win the next election instead of what’s best for the next generation.

I’m ready and eager to work with anyone who’s serious about solving the real problems facing our people and our country. I welcome anyone who comes to the table in good faith to help get our economy moving again and fulfill this country’s promise. That’s why we were elected in the first place. That’s what the American people expect and deserve. And that’s what we must deliver.

Thank you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Weekly Address: President Obama Addresses This Week’s Supreme Court Decision (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 23, 2010.

One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House – the people’s house.

We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

And we don’t intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

NYTimes: The Supreme Court’s Blow to Democracy

Posted on by TL

From the New York Times:

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.

Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

As a result of Thursday’s ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission radically reverses well-established law and erodes a wall that has stood for a century between corporations and electoral politics. (The ruling also frees up labor unions to spend, though they have far less money at their disposal.)

The founders of this nation warned about the dangers of corporate influence. The Constitution they wrote mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.

The Times is right. If Congress does not act, your vote will be meaningless. You are a person. A corporation is not. Corporations will now be able to give as much money as they want to any and all politicians.

This is incredibly insane.

Conservatives Longing For More Of Ross Perot’s ‘You People’

Posted on by TL

I chanced on a blog today written by a self-proclaimed "Concerned Christian Conservative." The Left – Watch What They Do, Not What They Say! appears to be a decenly-traficked site for a relative newcomer to the blogosphere. The author laments in a January 11 post the use of the term "African American," seeming nostalgic for the days when other terms were used instead. And, just in case you want to accuse the writer of being racist, he had black friends in the 60s, so let’s have none of that.

Mostly, the author is still hurting for Ross Perot, who took heat during the 1992 presidential campaign when he referred to African Americans as "you people." Yes, you see, Perot is the victim here.

From the post:

It seems that the American People have just about had it with the contrived leftist power technique of “Political Correctness.” Yes, power technique, the technique of changing a simple word and meaning to another and over and over again. Example, the word used to describe people from the African Continent. We first used the name “colored people” than to “negro” and on to “black” and now “African-American.” It’s funny, I specifically remember in the 60’s when my black friends in college insisted that I call them black instead of colored. That was fine with me, it made sense and it seemed they were happy about the new name. Then came the very political name in the 1980’s “African-American.” Now, that name was purposely issued direct from the Democrat National Committee to manipulate the majority of whites in America. It irritated many in America that the black population needed to change their name again. Many just came to the conclusion that the black population in America had an identity crisis. But the real reason was to have more ammunition and issues to attack the majority white population, who usually voted Republican. It’s simply manipulation and power control over a majority for which they cannot gain control in other ways. Anyone who didn’t conform was labeled racist, thus the political overtones and manipulation.

Ross Perot found that out in his attempt at the Presidency when he made an off handed comment referring to a group of black voters as “You People.” Boy, you would have thought he used the “N” word.

As a Christian, I really don’t get some of these so-called "Christians." What is anyone losing by calling our black brothers and sisters "African American?"

How dare any group decide for themselves what they should be called without asking white Americans first? Racism is about power, and the writer misses the power of those words.

Blessings to all on this day celebrating the memory of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blessings and peace to all.

State Department 800 Number for Americans with Family in Haiti

Posted on by TL

This information is current as of today, Tuesday, January 12 2010, 22:14:37 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time).

Washington, D.C.– The State Department Operations Center has set up the following number for Americans seeking information about family members in Haiti: 1-888-407-4747 (due to heavy volume, some callers may receive a recording).

The State Department says the United States embassy is still in the early stages of contacting American Citizens through our Warden Network. Communications are very difficult within Haiti at this time.

Giuliani Forgets 9/11: ‘No Domestic Attacks’ Under Bush

Posted on by TL

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Mayor of 9/11 forgot about all that, apparently. Or maybe he’s engaging in historical revisionism.

Yes, Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has had the senior moment par excellence: he has officially forgotten September 11, 2001 ever happened.

From CBS 2 Chicago:

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani set off a tempest about terrorism Friday with his claim that this nation "had no domestic attacks" under President George W. Bush. 

Giuliani somehow neglected to mention the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as he was contrasting President Barack Obama’s handling of terrorism with that of Bush in light of the failed Christmas Day attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound flight. The Sept. 11 attacks toppled New York’s World Trade Center, killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania and earned Giuliani accolades as "America’s mayor." 

The Republican said of Obama on ABC’s "Good Morning America" that "what he should be doing is following the right things that Bush did." 

While saying he believes Obama "turned the corner" on understanding the nature of terrorism when he publicly declared the U.S. at war, Giuliani added that Obama has plenty of room to improve on terrorism. 

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush," Giuliani said. "We’ve had one under Obama."

Oh, Rudy.

While I appreciated the analysis of Giuliani’s remarks on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow really did it all justice. Enjoy the video above.

Complete Remarks by President Obama on Strengthening Intelligence, Aviation Security

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 7, 2010– 4:34 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. The immediate reviews that I ordered after the failed Christmas terrorist attack are now complete. I was just briefed on the findings and recommendations for reform, and I believe it’s important that the American people understand the new steps that we’re taking to prevent attacks and keep our country safe.

This afternoon, my Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, will discuss his review into our terrorist watchlist system — how our government failed to connect the dots in a way that would have prevented a known terrorist from boarding a plane for America, and the steps we’re going to take to prevent that from happening again.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will discuss her review of aviation screening, technology and procedures —- how that terrorist boarded a plane with explosives that could have killed nearly 300 innocent people, and how we’ll strengthen aviation security going forward.

So today I want to just briefly summarize their conclusions and the steps that I’ve ordered to address them.

In our ever-changing world, America’s first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively. That’s what the intelligence reforms after the 9/11 attacks largely achieved. That’s what our intelligence community does every day. But, unfortunately, that’s not what happened in the lead-up to Christmas Day. It’s now clear that shortcomings occurred in three broad and compounding ways.

First, although our intelligence community had learned a great deal about the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen — called al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — that we knew that they sought to strike the United States and that they were recruiting operatives to do so — the intelligence community did not aggressively follow up on and prioritize particular streams of intelligence related to a possible attack against the homeland.

Second, this contributed to a larger failure of analysis —- a failure to connect the dots of intelligence that existed across our intelligence community and which, together, could have revealed that Abdulmutallab was planning an attack.

Third, this, in turn, fed into shortcomings in the watch-listing system which resulted in this person not being placed on the “no fly” list, thereby allowing him to board that plane in Amsterdam for Detroit.

In sum, the U.S. government had the information — scattered throughout the system — to potentially uncover this plot and disrupt the attack. Rather than a failure to collect or share intelligence, this was a failure to connect and understand the intelligence that we already had.

That’s why we took swift action in the immediate days following Christmas, including reviewing and updating the terrorist watchlist system and adding more individuals to the “no fly” list, and directing our embassies and consulates to include current visa information in their warnings of individuals with terrorist or suspected terrorist ties.

Today, I’m directing a series of additional corrective steps across multiple agencies. Broadly speaking, they fall into four areas.

First, I’m directing that our intelligence community immediately begin assigning specific responsibility for investigating all leads on high-priority threats so that these leads are pursued and acted upon aggressively — not just most of the time, but all of the time. We must follow the leads that we get. And we must pursue them until plots are disrupted. And that mean assigning clear lines of responsibility.

Second, I’m directing that intelligence reports, especially those involving potential threats to the United States, be distributed more rapidly and more widely. We can’t sit on information that could protect the American people.

Third, I’m directing that we strengthen the analytical process, how our analysis — how our analysts process and integrate the intelligence that they receive. My Director of National Intelligence, Denny Blair, will take the lead in improving our day-to-day efforts. My Intelligence Advisory Board will examine the longer-term challenge of sifting through vast universes of intelligence and data in our Information Age.

And finally, I’m ordering an immediate effort to strengthen the criteria used to add individuals to our terrorist watchlists, especially the “no fly” list. We must do better in keeping dangerous people off airplanes, while still facilitating air travel.

So taken together, these reforms will improve the intelligence community’s ability to collect, share, integrate, analyze, and act on intelligence swiftly and effectively. In short, they will help our intelligence community do its job even better and protect American lives.

But even the best intelligence can’t identify in advance every individual who would do us harm. So we need the security — at our airports, ports, and borders, and through our partnerships with other nations — to prevent terrorists from entering America.

At the Amsterdam airport, Abdulmutallab was subjected to the same screening as other passengers. He was required to show his documents — including a valid U.S. visa. His carry-on bag was X-rayed. He passed through a metal detector. But a metal detector can’t detect the kind of explosives that were sewn into his clothes.

As Secretary Napolitano will explain, the screening technologies that might have detected these explosives are in use at the Amsterdam airport, but not at the specific checkpoints that he passed through. Indeed, most airports in the world — and in the United States — do not yet have these technologies. Now, there’s no silver bullet to securing the thousands of flights into America each day, domestic and international. It will require significant investments in many areas. And that’s why, even before the Christmas attack, we increased investments in homeland security and aviation security. This includes an additional $1 billion in new systems and technologies that we need to protect our airports — more baggage screening, more passenger screening and more advanced explosive detection capabilities, including those that can improve our ability to detect the kind of explosive used on Christmas. These are major investments and they’ll make our skies safer and more secure.

As I announced this week, we’ve taken a whole range of steps to improve aviation screening and security since Christmas, including new rules for how we handle visas within the government and enhanced screening for passengers flying from, or through, certain countries.

And today, I’m directing that the Department of Homeland Security take additional steps, including: strengthening our international partnerships to improve aviation screening and security around the world; greater use of the advanced explosive detection technologies that we already have, including imaging technology; and working aggressively, in cooperation with the Department of Energy and our National Labs, to develop and deploy the next generation of screening technologies.

Now, there is, of course, no foolproof solution. As we develop new screening technologies and procedures, our adversaries will seek new ways to evade them, as was shown by the Christmas attack. In the never-ending race to protect our country, we have to stay one step ahead of a nimble adversary. That’s what these steps are designed to do. And we will continue to work with Congress to ensure that our intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement communities have the resources they need to keep the American people safe.

I ordered these two immediate reviews so that we could take immediate action to secure our country. But in the weeks and months ahead, we will continue a sustained and intensive effort of analysis and assessment, so that we leave no stone unturned in seeking better ways to protect the American people.

I have repeatedly made it clear — in public with the American people, and in private with my national security team — that I will hold my staff, our agencies and the people in them accountable when they fail to perform their responsibilities at the highest levels.

Now, at this stage in the review process it appears that this incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies. That’s why, in addition to the corrective efforts that I’ve ordered, I’ve directed agency heads to establish internal accountability reviews, and directed my national security staff to monitor their efforts. We will measure progress. And John Brennan will report back to me within 30 days and on a regular basis after that. All of these agencies — and their leaders — are responsible for implementing these reforms. And all will be held accountable if they don’t.

Moreover, I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer. For ultimately, the buck stops with me. As President, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people. And when the system fails, it is my responsibility.

Over the past two weeks, we’ve been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let’s be clear about what this moment demands. We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

And we’ve made progress. Al Qaeda’s leadership is hunkered down. We have worked closely with partners, including Yemen, to inflict major blows against al Qaeda leaders. And we have disrupted plots at home and abroad, and saved American lives.

And we know that the vast majority of Muslims reject al Qaeda. But it is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations not just in the Middle East, but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding. That’s why I’ve directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by lone recruits. And that’s why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death –- including the murder of fellow Muslims –- while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress.

To advance that progress, we’ve sought new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect, and work together to fulfill the aspirations that all people share — to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security. That’s what America believes in. That’s the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.

Here at home, we will strengthen our defenses, but we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans, because great and proud nations don’t hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want, and so long as I am President, we will never hand them that victory. We will define the character of our country, not some band of small men intent on killing innocent men, women and children.

And in this cause, every one of us — every American, every elected official — can do our part. Instead of giving into cynicism and division, let’s move forward with the confidence and optimism and unity that defines us as a people. For now is not a time for partisanship, it’s a time for citizenship — a time to come together and work together with the seriousness of purpose that our national security demands.

That’s what it means to be strong in the face of violent extremism. That’s how we will prevail in this fight. And that’s how we will protect our country and pass it — safer and stronger — to the next generation.

Thanks very much.

END
4:47 P.M. EST

Source: whitehouse.gov

Olbermann: President Obama Admits National Security System Failed (Video)

Posted on by TL

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama admitted today the natiional security system failed on Christmas Day, 2009, and disaster was averted by "brave individuals." According to Keith Olbermann, President Obama said today, "This was a screw-up that could have been disastrous. We dodged a bullet, but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals, not because the system worked. And that’s not acceptable. While there will be a tendency for finger-pointing, I will not tolerate it."

According to the President, the United States had all the intelligence it needed to prevent the alleged terrorist from boarding the plan, but the intelligence was not fully analyzed or leveraged.

The video above includes Olbermann’s complete analysis of the President’s meeting today with 20 top officials representing the entire security and intelligence apparatus.

On Emulating Abraham Lincoln and the Perils of Text Messaging

Posted on by TL
Lincoln Memorial

Have you ever been so angry at friends or life in general that you wanted to explode? Ever fall into a funk with life, feeling down and out, dejected and disheartened?

I was in such a place just before Christmas. The winter solstice brings out the best and worst in us, I suppose. So it was I did “beweep my [perceived] outcast state.” When I found myself in this uncomfortable place, I remembered one of the ways Abraham Lincoln used to deal with his own anger and melancholy: Abe would write letters expressing his deepest feelings, and never send them.

I tried that with a few text messages, and got burned when I accidentally sent a couple of them.

Abraham Lincoln I’m not.

Abraham Lincoln, two words that mean “America” almost more than “Old Glory.” I try to emulate Abe in politics, in the way I write, in the way I deal with people. I’ve also tried to employ some of Honest Abe’s coping mechanisms. To make a point in an argument or debate, Lincoln would tell a clever short story, emphasis on short. With brevity and humor, Lincoln would make his point, helping to quell a potentially polemical debate. In doing so, the man succeeded in building bridges, working with people who disagreed with him significantly.

Lincoln also had his bouts with depression. Consider an excerpt from God, Lincoln and Depression, published January 2, 2010 Psychology Today:

Abraham Lincoln is an unusual psychological case study. He was both chronically melancholy, and yet among the strongest people in history.

Lincoln lost perhaps his one true love, and married a mentally unstable woman who abused him. He loved his sons – indulged them ridiculously – but one died very young, and another (Willie) died at age 11 in the White House, almost breaking Lincoln.

Oddly, the same philosophical-psychological outlook caused Lincoln to be both depressed, and incredibly strong. Lincoln was not a Christian, as he was raised. But it is not accurate to call him a disbeliever. His parents were hard-core Baptists, and Lincoln rejected their church. But their Calvinist views of predestination had an indelible impact on Lincoln.

Throughout his life, Lincoln was stricken with bouts of sometimes paralyzing melancholy. And although he enjoyed reading, telling stories, practicing law, political machinations – and playing with his children above all – Lincoln was never a cheerful person.

One method Abraham Lincoln employed to work through his occasional anger, depression and bouts of self-doubt was to write letters. To his credit, he never sent most of the letters he wrote. Lincoln wrote many letters expressing disappointment and anger, placed each letter in an envelope addressed to the person who was the target of his wrath, put the envelop in a drawer, and moved on. Many of these letters, according to Lincoln on Leadership, were in the form of conversations. Lincoln would go all out, expressing in these letters his anger and criticism of his subordinates, often in very scathing terms, then seal the letters, leaving them forever undelivered.

The website LettersNeverSent.com shares a passage from Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends and Influence People, a book I read in my youth, and should probably read again:

As Abraham Lincoln lay dying of an assassin’s bullet, Secretary of War Stanton was quoted as saying “There lies the most perfect ruler of men that the world has ever seen.”

What made Lincoln such a great leader? He succeeded in curing himself of the critical spirit we’ve talked about this morning.

Lincoln had suffered through inept and bungling generals for the first three years of the war. McClellen, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker… but in the summer of 1863, it seemed that the Union under General Meade would finally be able to crush the confederacy. Lee had stumbled badly at Gettysburg and needed to flee back across the Potomac to regroup and survive. But the Potomac was swollen and crossing was impossible. Sensing victory at hand, Lincoln sent both a telegraph and a special messenger to Meade specifically instructing him not to hold a war council but to attack immediately. What did Meade do? He held his war council and delayed. Because of that delay Lee had the time to move his troops across the river to safety.

Lincoln was crushed. In anger he composed this letter:

“My dear General,

I do not believe you appreciate the magnitude of the misfortune involved in Lee’s escape. He was within our easy grasp, and to have closed upon him would, in connection with our other late successes, have ended the war. As it is, the war will be prolonged indefinitely. If you could not safely attack Lee last Monday, how can you possibly do so south of the river, when you can take with you very few – no more than 2/3’s of the force you then had in hand? It would be unreasonable to expect and I do no expect that you can now effect much. Your golden opportunity is gone, and I am distressed immeasurably because of it.”

What do you suppose Meade did when he read that letter?… He never did. Lincoln never sent the letter. It was found later amongst Lincoln’s papers following his death. Why didn’t he send it? Because he had come to grips with a critical spirit and determined to defeat it.

Abraham Lincoln

As I mentioned, while in my less-than-happy place before the Christmas holiday, I decided to tap out a few text messages expressing my anger and disappointment at life. I don’t text many people, so I opened the last few messages I had sent, and started clumsily typing in my mobile phone. In the back of my mind, I was remembering Abraham Lincoln, how he found writing like this therapeutic.

I did too. It really helped.

I went at it, giving vent to every petty insecurity I felt at the time. I was on fire.

I did this over a period of a few days, each session choosing the last person I had texted in real life, filling a text field with my rambling rants, then I would go on to the next text message I had sent, and fill that field. After each therapy session, I would return to what I had written and carefully backspace over my diatribes, carefully erasing them.

Or so I thought.

Turns out I don’t send enough texts to know the subtleties of my phone’s messaging client.  In short, I really don’t know how to use the software.

So, a few days later, while away for the holidays, feeling much better and enjoying family, I took it upon myself to send a couple of friendly text messages to some friends — or so I thought.

On two occasions that I know of, I found that portions of my rants had not been completely deleted, somehow hiding above my phone’s cursor. Off they went to my friends, making my Christmas greetings sound like sarcastic stabs in the back.

I’ll not suffer through the details of what I actually sent here.  Just know that what I sent sounded juvenile and trite.

Instant communication is a wonderful thing, but it’s very hard to take back.

So I write this hoping to pass along a lesson learned.  Be careful when you text — something I should have known.

How would Lincoln have survived email, voicemail, and text messaging, I wonder?

Better than I have, I’m sure.

I still have explaining to do.