Strange bedfellows, indeed

What may be about to happen in Syria just might re-define the term “strange bedfellows.”

This one utterly blows my ever-loving mind. The United States apparently is about to start launching surveillance flights over Syria to help pinpoint the whereabouts of ISIS fighters battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, the guy we threatened once to hit with airstrikes after he crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons on his own people.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215935-report-us-to-conduct-surveillance-flights-over-syria

ISIS is running rampant in Syria and Iraq. The terrorist organization has beheaded an American journalists, threatened to bring its mayhem to American shores, pledged all-out war against Israel and promised to overthrow the Iraqi government we helped install.

The group personifies evil.

It’s also fighting Assad’s wicked regime in Syria. Assad is another enemy of the United States. President Obama has called on him to step down. He has pledged support to insurgents fighting against Syrian government troops. One of those so-called “allies” appears to be ISIS, if that’s what we’re led to believe.

How can that possibly be happening?

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Remember that cliché?

You want more? Syria now has offered to help the United States by providing intelligence data on the movements of ISIS within that country’s border. No word yet on whether we’ve accepted the offer of assistance.

My head is about to explode as I ponder this amazing tangle of relationships.

Someone help me out. Please.

 

'One plane ticket away'

U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers made what he presumed to be a profound point about the threat posed by Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS is “one plane ticket away” from striking the United States of America, Rogers said on Meet the Press this past Sunday.

I heard him say that and wondered: That’s news … now?

I get that Rogers is seeking to underscore the threat that ISIS poses. These are truly evil men who, it’s been said by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, have an “apocalyptic, end-of-the-world” view.

The hard truth, though, is that all terror groups are “one plane ticket away” from entering the United States and doing terrible harm against Americans.

They were one ticket away on Sept. 11, 2001, yes? Nineteen terrorists boarded three commercial aircraft that day in the eastern United States, hijacked them and flew two of them into buildings in New York and Washington, D.C.; the third jet crashed into that Pennsylvania field after passengers fought heroically with the hijackers to keep them from crashing it into another target. 

I also believe we’ve done better at protecting the United States since that horrific day. The measures imposed during the Bush administration have made commercial air travel less fun for passengers around the world, but it has made it demonstrably safer.

The same can be said now, despite the critics’ claim that the Obama administration is doing too little to protect U.S. citizens against terrorist threat. To that I ask: We’ve had how many attacks on our shores since 9/11?

Yes, ISIS and other despicable terrorists are “one plane ticket away” from committing mayhem here. That’s as it’s always been and likely always will be.

The question remains: Are we going to remain vigilant and alert?

 

Strongest 'non-incumbent in history'? I don't think so

Question for David Plouffe, the former campaign guru for President Obama: What in the world did they teach you in political science classes at the University of Delaware?

Plouffe was a panelist this past Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” news-talk show.

He declared that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s is virtually assured to be the next president of the United States.

Plouffe said Clinton is the “strongest non-incumbent candidate in U.S. political history.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/25/plouffe_hillary_the_strongest_non-incumbent_candidate_in_history_of_american_politics.html

When I heard him say it, two words came immediately to mind: Dwight Eisenhower.

Let’s flash back to 1952.

General of the Army Eisenhower was just seven years removed from his key role in defeating Nazi Germany and bringing an end to World War II’s fighting in Europe. He came home to huge parades.

Ike then went on to become president of Columbia University and later took over as supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe.

President Truman did not run for re-election in 1952, leaving the field wide open.

Gen. Eisenhower stepped up.

The Republican from Denison, Texas was virtually pre-ordained to become president that year. He defeated Adlai Stevenson in a massive Electoral College landslide, winning 442 electoral votes to Stevenson’s 89. Ike would repeat the drubbing four years later when he ran for re-election.

It’s fair to ask whether Plouffe is fully aware of Dwight Eisenhower’s standing among Americans those 62 years ago.

Hillary Clinton figures to be a strong candidate for president if she decides to run.

Is she the strongest non-incumbent in American political history?

I do not believe that’s the case.

 

Governor had no business demanding resignation

Dave Kemp is a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer who works in the public sector.

He knows Texas law better than most folks, including me. He put something on Facebook today about Gov. Rick Perry’s indictment that is worth sharing here.

Kemp writes: “There is a lot of spin going on involving the Governor’s felony indictments. Here are my observations: 1. Whether or not the Travis County DA should have resigned is not the question. The question is did the governor violate the Texas Penal Code by trying to force her to resign. Therefore, Perry should stop trashing Ms. Lehmberg, who has paid the price for her own criminal conduct – she pled guilty and served jail time. And a removal suit against her was unsuccessful. So focus on your own conduct, Governor. 2. What business it is of the governor if the DA doesn’t resign? That’s what elections and removal suits are for. The governor had no responsibility for the DA’s conduct. We must conclude that at best he was using bullying tactics that he would condemn if a Washington politician tried using. 3. What collateral damage did the governor do by cutting the funding for the Public Integrity Unit? It certainly didn’t harm the DA. But it could have harmed other criminal investigations. The veto was an irresponsible act.”

The most interesting element in this post is contained smack in the middle of it.

“What business is it of the governor if the DA doesn’t resign? That’s what elections and removal suits are for.”

A grand jury indicted Perry on two felony counts of abuse of power and coercion. He demanded that Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg resign after her drunk-driving conviction. If she didn’t do as he demanded, he then threatened to veto money for the public integrity unit her office operates. She didn’t quit; he vetoed the money.

Kemp’s point is a valid one.

Gov. Perry became entangled in what essentially is a local political matter. I agree that Lehmberg behaved badly; she broke the law and should have resigned. I said so, too, at the time. She didn’t listen to me, either.

However, for the governor to then carry this fight further speaks to political bullying.

It’s been reported that other DAs have been accused of drunk driving, but we heard nary a peep out of the governor’s office. This one is different. Lehmberg is a Democrat, Perry is a Republican, and Lehmberg’s office was looking into some allegations against key GOP allies of the governor.

It’s been speculated that Perry’s interest in Lehmberg’s drunk-driving case had everything to do with how he could remove a partisan nemesis.

Yes, politics can be a nasty affair. I’m betting Gov. Perry is going to learn that lesson the hard way.

 

 

 

Rand Paul has become a peacenik

Wow! What in the world has Sen. Rand Paul been putting in his Wheaties?

The Kentucky Republican is now accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of being a “war hawk” and is staking out some interesting turf as he prepares to launch a possible 2016 presidential campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-calls-hillary-clinton-war-hawk?cid=sm_m_main_1_20140825_30412376

The young man is sounding downright dovish in his approach to foreign policy.

Go figure.

Paul long has been considered a darling of the tea party movement within the Republican Party. As I have watched the tea party wing of the GOP, I’ve been struck by how hawkish many of its members have sounded regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. What’s more, the tea party folks have pulled many of the so-called “establishment wing” GOP members over to their side.

Have you heard the griping from veteran U.S. Senate and House Republicans calling for more “robust” responses in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan to the terrorists who are creating so much havoc?

Meanwhile, Rand Paul is saying quite the opposite, He said on Meet the Press this past weekend: “Were I to run, there’s going to be a lot of independents, and even some Democrats, who say you know what? We are tired of war. We’re worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war, because she’s so gung-ho.”

Yes, then-Sen. Clinton voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq ordered by President Bush. She’s since walked back from that vote, declaring she believes now that was a mistake.

Is she “gung-ho” these days? I don’t sense what Sen. Paul is sensing in a possible — if not probable — Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised. Paul, after all, did declare his desire to see “all aid” to Israel suspended. He’s tried to take that statement back. However, as my late friend and colleague Claude Duncan once told me about politicians who try to retract regrettable statements: You can’t unhonk the horn.

 

New county judge's plate will be heaping

Nancy Tanner isn’t shying away from the huge tasks awaiting her when she becomes Potter County’s next judge.

It’s not exactly a done deal just yet, although it’s virtually so. Tanner won the Republican Party primary in March. No Democrat is on the ballot. Still, she has to go through the motions of an election in November. It’s safe to assume she’ll be elected in the fall, then she gets set to take the gavel from her former mentor and friend, Arthur Ware, who fired Tanner from her job as his administrative assistant in 2013 for reasons no one yet really knows — officially.

Job One for the new judge?

It appears that the Courts Building needs replacing. Not repair. Or refurbishing. It needs to be knocked down.

No one in county government — at least those with whom I’ve spoken — likes working in the structure that Ware calls without a hint of affection the “Grain Elevator.”

It was completed in 1985, which means that it has fallen apart in less than 30 years. Compare that with the Santa Fe Building, which houses several county offices. That Santa Fe was built in 1930 and as a friend who works for the county told me this morning, he toured the then-vacant structure right after the county bought it in 1995 — before the county lifted a finger to fix it up — and said “We could move right now!”

I should add that the county paid a grand total of $400,000 for the 11-story office building.

How’s the county going to pay for a new Courts Building? Tanner told the Rotary Club of Amarillo this past week she believes certificates of obligation are an option. The county has a relatively light debt load, she said.

Now the big question: How much would a new building cost? My spies at the county tell me they’ve heard estimates that hover around the $150 million mark. Would the county issue that COs to cover the entire cost? Tanner didn’t say.

The building is a piece of crap. Everyone seems to agree on that fundamental point.

It needs to go. Finding a suitable strategy to replace will keep the new county judge up late at night.

Welcome back to public service, Judge Tanner.

 

 

Terrorists release U.S. journalist … to what end?

Peter Theo Curtis is a free man.

Yes, that’s reason to cheer. He’d been held captive by an al-Qaeda-linked terror organization in Syria for two years. Now he’s out, apparently in good health.

His country is happy that he’s free. It’s time to cheer that event.

How, though, does one American family react to this news? I refer to the loved ones of James Foley, another American journalist who was murdered by his captors, also after being held for about two years in Syria.

http://news.msn.com/world/us-says-american-held-in-syria-has-been-freed

My heart breaks for the Foley family. They cannot possibly be greeting this news with unabashed joy. They are still crushed by their loved one’s fate.

The White House reacted with understandable relief at the news. But issued a word of caution: “The president shares in the joy and relief that we all feel now that Theo is out of Syria and safe,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “But we continue to hold in our thoughts and prayers the Americans who remain in captivity in Syria, and we will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to see that the remaining American hostages are freed.”

The United States and our allies are dealing with unpredictability in the extreme. One terror organization commits a cold-blooded act of murder while another one releases a hostage. How does a government respond to this complicated set of circumstances juxtaposed to each other?

No one should delude themselves into thinking this is an easy puzzle to solve or a problem with a clear solution.

 

Let's hear plan? No, wait … that'll tip off the bad guys

These guys are killin’ me.

Critics of the president of the United States now say they want to hear his plans, in detail, on how he intends to “finish off” ISIS, the terror group running rampant in Syria and Iraq.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215847-ryan-wants-to-hear-obamas-plan-to-finish-off-isis-militants

Do you get it? They want Barack Obama to reveal to congressional Republicans the precise manner in which he intends to battle the hideous terror organization. Then what? Will they blab to the world whether the president is on the right track or wrong track? Will they reveal to the ISIS commanders what they’ve learned? Will they tip our hand, giving the bad guys a heads up on where we’ll attack and how much force we’ll use?

I get that the critics want to be kept in the loop. I also get that they need to some things about how an international crisis is evolving.

There seems to be a limit, though, on how much a commander in chief should disclose to his political adversaries — let alone his allies — on how he is deploying military and intelligence assets to do battle with a sworn enemy. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., noted that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey are speaking out, but he wants to hear directly from the president.

Mr. Chairman, the defense boss and the Joint Chiefs chairman are speaking on behalf of the president. I’m betting they’re saying what he wants them to say.

 

 

Another cop dies in line of duty

Police officers’ image has taken a hit in recent days with the controversy swirling around the shooting death of a young man in Ferguson, Mo., by a police officer. The young man was black, the officer is white. Questions are surrounding the community and the aftershock of the shooting has rippled into police departments all across the nation.

Then something like this happens in a small South Texas town that makes you take pause and ponder the risk that our law enforcement officers face every single day they’re on duty.

Elmendorf Police Chief Michael Pimentel was shot to death while trying to arrest a man. Pimentel had been waiting outside Joshua Lopez’s home to issue an arrest warrant. A man came out and shot Pimentel twice. The chief was taken to a local hospital, but died from his wounds.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Officer-critically-wounded-following-shooting-5707898.php

I’ve long supported the work of good police officers and understood instinctively that every single call they make is fraught with potential danger.

There’s no word yet on the nature of the arrest warrant Chief Pimentel was seeking to serve. I haven’t yet read whether the suspect had a record of violent crime. Perhaps he did. Thus, the chief knew he was putting himself in danger by waiting for the suspect to come out of his house. The chief also might not have expected the suspect to agree quietly to being arrested.

It still brings to light the hazards that police officers face every time they put on the uniform, strap on their weapon, pin on their badge and go to work.

Nothing is “routine” in police work. Nothing at all.

 

 

'Mork' shows us how to honor America

https://www.facebook.com/john.kanelis/posts/819649338085680?notif_t=like

Robins Williams’s death has taken a splendid talent from those of us who laughed at his comic genius.

This item showed up on my Facebook news feed the other day. I’ve shared it once already, but I’m doing so again right here, with just a few words about what it means to me.

Williams’s salute to the United States in this short video shows how one can be patriotic and irreverent at the same time. It’s becoming a bit of a lost art these days.

The political debate has gotten so sour that it seems that any kind of fun-poking is seen as some sort of statement against the things for which the nation stands. I wish that weren’t so.

There’s a segment in this video that suggests it was made in the early 1980s, about the time Williams was portraying the space alien “Mork” on the TV series “Mork and Mindy.” Thus, the symbolism of an actor who portrays an extraterrestrial is so meaningful to me in this video.

Robin Williams gets what it means to love this country. We need more of this kind of loving irreverence in the halls of power.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience