After reading your reply, and then thinking about it while doing some other chores, then coming back and reading your reply and the petition again, I'm even more concerned about this.
trooprally wrote:
cc2k I thought Item 2 is pretty specific.
"The sole purpose of this website is twofold;
1. to raise public awareness about this issue ( News and Update page)
2. to petition President Obama to make a full and open disclosure about his rationale for leaving the 3000 troops behind, and to explain what security measures will be taken to insure their safetyI will see if the originators of the web site and letter.
Thanks for the interesting thought of putting this on the WH's web site.
[Mr] T
I won't be signing this as it is written now.
First, it's not clear, does this group want a stronger presence left? Or do they want all troops returned home? If it's one of those two things, why not ask for it?
Second, I don't want anyone who signs the petition to receive a full explanation of “what security measures will be taken to insure their (our troops) safety.” I certainly don't want specific details about that topic made public, or even disclosed to anyone with no "need to know."
This is the enemie's dream come true. Have the details of our defenses published on the Internet or in the New York Times or other published media.
If you want all troops returned home, none left in Afghanistan, then petition for a complete withdrawal.
If you want a stronger force left, so that our forces can properly defend themselves, petition for that.
The way it is written now, this petition is weak and nonsensical. It's not well thought out at all, and it could do more harm than good.
Missed that, Thank You ... Glad I did not go out and secure an email address to sign. Very much in agreement with your second point.
i hear your feelings about this. do you have any suggestions about what would be a better way to word the petition?