Category Archives: national news

International news, national news, political news

Baker says 'I told you so' … in effect

Former Secretary of State James Baker III didn’t have to wag his finger and say “I told you so.”

But he implied it anyway when asked over the weekend about the decision in 1991 not to march into Baghdad and overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Baker was interviewed on Meet the Press and the question came from moderator Chuck Todd: Do you still stand by your decision not to take out Saddam Hussein?

Yes, Baker said without hesitation. Why? Because, he noted, we would have encountered the same problem we’re encountering this very moment: trying to build a nation from scratch.

The mission in 1991 was clear: toss Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, where they had invaded in August 1990. The world would not tolerate one nation overrunning another nation and putting a massive supply of oil in jeopardy. President Bush sought permission from Congress and got it. He then went to the United Nations and got permission from the world body to use force to oust Iraqi troops.

The U.N. resolution was clear: Remove the troops from Kuwait, period. Don’t go any further. The president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff understood what the resolution said and the president would honor it to the letter.

James Baker brought together a coalition of nations to aid in that effort.

What the former secretary of state also seemed to imply — at least to my ears — was that tossing Saddam Hussein out in March 2003 is the source of all the trouble that is occurring in Iraq today. We’re still trying to build a democratic government in a country that’s never known freedom and liberty the way we understand the meaning of the terms.

The crisis in Iraq in Syria has gotten complicated almost beyond comprehension. It’s now up to the current administration to seek a solution. Still, it’s fair to ask: Did we really consider fully the consequences of what would happen the moment we decided to overthrow a sovereign government?

Did anyone back in 2003 bother to ask James Baker what might happen?

national news, political news, State news

'Meatless Mondays' far from 'brainwashing'

I used to respect Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples. Now he’s joining the right-wing shouting campaign that’s trying to suggest that a healthier school-lunch menu is somehow an “agenda-driven” campaign meant to deprive children of eating meat.

Media Matters — a liberal watchdog group that delights in torpedoing Fox News’s efforts to slant the news — is at it again.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/15/fox-news-anti-scientific-attack-on-meatless-mon/200754

Staples contends that a “Meatless Monday” program being tried in Texas public schools is part of a hidden agenda. He said those who promote such a thing actually intend to remove meat from the menu every single day. And he knows that … how? He doesn’t say in the Fox segment. He just makes the assertion. Don’t look for the Fox hosts to question him on how he knows such things.

He calls it “bad science.” Staples is wrong. Scientists and dietitians all around the world have developed mountains of data that demonstrate that including more fruits and veggies in your diet leads to healthier living. What in the world is wrong with any of this?

There’s nothing inherently sinister going on here. A single day of the week doesn’t constitute a pervasive campaign to rid the school systems’ lunch menus of meat.

Staples ought to know better. Of course, he isn’t about to say he does know better, because he’s going to join the tea party Republican chorus taking aim at those un-American liberals who intent on destroying our way of life.

I offer this brief commentary as a red-blooded American carnivore. I love red meat; the bloodier the better. I also consume my share of chicken and fish.

None of our school systems’ efforts to reduce childhood obesity alarms me.

It shouldn’t alarm the Texas agriculture commissioner, either.

local news, national news, political news

TR clearly was a RINO

Watching the first episode of PBS’s series on the Roosevelt family last night, I was struck once again by the notion that Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed himself to be a dedicated Republican, but didn’t act like one who is defined by today’s Grand Old Party.

Let’s call TR the original RINO — a Republican In Name Only.

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-roosevelts/

The first part of “The Roosevelts” documentary produced by historian Ken Burns tells of TR’s ascendance to the presidency. He was the youngest man ever to assume the office. He got there by way of the assassination of President William McKinley.

He set out to bust up monopolies, rein in oversized companies, while making them pay their fair share of taxes. He didn’t believe business could build the country all by itself. Teddy Roosevelt believed in activist government.

TR used government muscle to secure land in Panama and begin construction of the Panama Canal. Is that an “infrastructure project” or what?

Imagine today’s Republican Party doing any of that. It wouldn’t happen. TR would be laughed out of the party that we’ve come to know and — in my case anyway — loathe with a passion.

“The Roosevelts” is going to be broadcast throughout the week. It will continue through TR’s post-presidential life and the battle he fought with his own Republican Party. He didn’t think it was “progressive” enough, so he launched a presidential bid in 1912 under the Bull Moose party banner. He failed, but laid the groundwork for what would become the modern progressive movement.

The series will chronicle the careers of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, two champions in their own right. They were dedicated Democrats.

Teddy Roosevelt, though, more or less broke the mold that used to define early-20th century Republicanism. What has emerged in the century that followed is a mere shadow of what it used to be.

International news, national news, political news

Put lawsuit on hold, Mr. Speaker

Dear Speaker of the House John Boehner:

You don’t know me, nor do you likely care what I have to say about how you do your job. That is the business of the voters in your Ohio congressional district. Still, I’m going to offer you some unsolicited advice from out here in Flyover Country.

That lawsuit you plan to file against the president of the United States over his alleged misuse of executive authority? Put on the farthest back burner you can find.

You know this already, Mr. Speaker, but the country is going to war — again. The enemy this time is the Islamic State. They’ve beheaded two American journalists and a British aid worker. They mean business. They’re the nastiest of the nasty elements of society.

President Obama is trying mightily to craft an international coalition of nations — including Sunni Arab states in the Middle East — to join the United States in this fight to destroy ISIL. You, sir, should join the fight as well.

The lawsuit you said you want to file is a mere distraction at a time of national crisis. It smacks of partisan petulance. A lot of us out here in the heartland know what gives with the suit. You want to fire up the Republican Party base in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. You want your party to take control of the Senate. That likely will happen no matter what you do regarding that silly lawsuit. I can grasp your anger over the president’s use of executive authority to tinker with the Affordable Care Act. Given the international stakes, though, it all seems so damn petty.

To file suit now would serve as the Mother of All Distractions. It would take the president’s eyes off the ball he needs to watch, which is the one involving the protection of Americans. That’s his No. 1 duty as president and commander in chief. You agree with that, right?

As for your own job as speaker of the House, you’ve got to rally the entire body — not just Republicans — to some form of unity behind the president as he undertakes the task of fighting this despicable enemy.

Picking a court fight now, with the nation’s attention turning to ISIL, disserves the country you say you love.

I believe you do love America, Mr. Speaker. So do I.

So, from one patriotic American to another: Let go of that goofy lawsuit idea.

national news, political news, Sports news

Congress to look into NFL conduct? C'mon!

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has opened the door for yet another congressional spectacle in which lawmakers will seek to call attention to a problem that should be solved by someone else.

Domestic violence is the issue of the day.

Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said today that the National Football League’s response to the Ray Rice scandal — he punched his then-fiancée unconscious, remember? — has been “outrageous.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/09/gillibrand-hearings-after-ray-rice-incident-possible-195428.html?hp=r1

So, what’s Congress going to do about it?

Gillibrand thinks hearings are possible. To what end?

I think I know. The end will be to allow senators to make speeches, to get their names into print, their faces on TV and they’ll be able to express justifiable outrage at the way the NFL has handled these cases involving players striking the women in their lives.

Give me a break.

Congress has many more, and much larger, fish to fry — pardon the expression — than butting into the business of the NFL.

Yes, the league has a serious image problem. The owners need to hold Commissioner Roger Goodell accountable for the way he has handled the Rice matter. Goodell does work for the owners, who will need to decide whether the commissioner keeps his job.

The NFL already has launched an independent investigation led by former FBI director Robert Mueller, who vows to be thorough in his probe and plans to reveal his findings to the public the moment he has assembled all the facts in the case.

Let’s be clear: The domestic violence crisis in the NFL is a serious burden for the league to bear. It must make these offenders accountable and they must pay for the horrible acts of violence they commit. That’s within the NFL’s purview.

Congress has to worry about whether to approve air strikes in Syria; it has to look for ways to ensure that Americans are safe from terrorists; it must decide whether to act on the myriad programs proposed by President Obama, but which have been stuck in the congressional gridlock.

It need not conduct show hearings for the purpose of allowing elected politicians to make spectacles of themselves.

International news, national news

Coalition building … then and now

James Baker III is a great American who’s served with honor over many years as secretary of state, secretary of commerce and White House chief of staff.

It was his job at the State Department that has brought him into the discussion over how President Obama should handle the fight against the Islamic State.

Baker appeared today on Meet the Press and expressed — no surprise there — misgivings about Obama’s plan to fight ISIL. Specifically, Baker questioned the ability of the president to gather the coalition needed to destroy the terrorists. He compared the latest coalition-building plan to the effort launched in 1990 in the run-up to the Persian Gulf War.

I have great respect for Baker, but the comparison isn’t entirely apt.

Baker was tasked with recruiting nations to aid in the ousting of Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait, the oil-rich emirate. The mission was clear and simple: Oust the Iraqis from Kuwait using maximum military force.

President George H.W. Bush ordered the deployment of 500,000 American troops. Baker persuaded allies to send in another 200,000 troops. The allies — including the British, French and, oh yes, the Syrians — sent troops into combat to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces.

The task before Barack Obama, according to Baker, is to persuade Sunni Muslim nations to actually aid in a fight that hasn’t yet been defined. The president won’t commit ground troops; Baker believes we need to send special operations forces into Syria and Iraq to aid in locating targets for the air campaign that Obama has planned.

My point here is that the enemy isn’t nearly as clearly defined as the enemy was in Kuwait. Baker knows that as well. The Muslim nations need to have a clear mission, as do Americans who are weary of sending young warriors back into battle.

The conflict we’re entering now is infinitely more complicated than the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis.

Can it be done? Yes. With great care.

business news, national news, State news

Export oil, deplete supply, price goes up

Pressure reportedly is mounting on Capitol Hill to lift a four-decade ban on exporting U.S. crude oil.

This notion gives me pause. I’m not totally against it. It surely, though, does raise a fundamental economic question: If supply-and-demand policy regulates the price consumers pay for a product, would exporting oil overseas reduce the supply here at home and, thus, mean we pay more for what we purchase?

Momentum builds to allow US oil exports

I watched the price of gasoline drop twice Saturday while I was working. The price of regular unleaded gasoline is now around $3.07 per gallon in Amarillo.

Then this morning I read in the Wall Street Journal that prices might be coming down even more. And this comes as the pressure builds to allow U.S. exports of oil. Why? Because we have so much of it now being produced here at home, thanks to the enormous shale oil reserves being developed in places such as North Dakota and Montana — not to mention the production that’s occurring in West Texas and Oklahoma.

Some Republicans want to lift the ban enacted in the 1970s when oil was relatively scarce. We had been through those oil embargoes slapped on us by rogue Middle East nations. The price of fossil fuel products has gone nowhere but up ever since … until now.

The price is coming down, thanks to a lot of factors: better motor vehicle fuel efficiency; increased development of alternative energy sources, which means less reliance on fossil fuels to generate electricity.

All of this has contributed to a glut of oil supply in the United States.

Do we want to draw down that supply when Americans might start to see some serious relief as they fill up their motor vehicles with fuel?

Supply goes up, prices go down. Isn’t that what we want? I need to think some more about this idea.

national news, political news

Mark Sanford's back in the public eye

Mark Sanford had dropped off my radar. Indeed, I thought he was gone forever.

Until now.

He’s back. The reason has something to do with why he was such a notorious character in the first place.

http://news.msn.com/us/us-rep-sanford-calls-off-engagement-to-soul-mate

Back when he was the Republican governor of South Carolina, he famously disappeared for a few days. He told his staff to put the word out he was “hiking on the Appalachian Trail.” Turns out he was cavorting with his mistress — way down yonder in Argentina.

He lied to the public about his whereabouts and as AWOL from his elected duty as governor of the Palmetto State.

What a goofball.

Well, he later got engaged to his “soul mate,” Maria Belen Chapur, after his wife, Jenny, divorced him. He then got elected to Congress, where he served before becoming governor.

Now the nutty guy says he’s calling off his engagement to Chapur, apparently because of continuing difficulties with the former Mrs. Sanford, the one on whom he cheated with Chapur.

“No relationship can stand forever this tension,” wrote Sanford in a Facebook message to Chapur. He alluded to possibly getting re-engaged if his situation with Jenny Sanford calms down. There has been trouble over visitation with one of the couple’s children.

According to MSN.com: “His Facebook posting comes after attorneys for Jenny Sanford last week asked a family court judge to limit the lawmaker’s visitation with his youngest child. They also want Mark Sanford to undergo psychological tests and take anger management and parenting courses.”

Let’s remember that Mark Sanford once slept on his couch in his congressional office so he could be sure to get home every weekend to be with his wife and their children; he cited his belief in strong “family values.” Then he cheats on his wife, lies to his constituents, gets engaged to his mistress, and then breaks off his engagement while lawyers try to get this goober to undergo “anger management and parenting courses.”

Go away, congressman. Please?

International news, national news, political news

Did we abandon an ISIL captive?

My heart breaks for Diane Foley, whose son James was beheaded by Islamist terrorists.

Accordingly, I can understand her bitterness that the U.S. government perhaps could have done more to save her son’s life.

Perhaps.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/12/us/james-foley-mother-us-response/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Is it fair, though, so soon after this terrible tragedy to suggest the government failed to do all it could do to secure the journalist’s release?

It’s been revealed that in July the U.S. sent a Special Forces team into Syria to rescue Foley. It failed. The team arrived at where it thought Foley was being held but discovered only an empty building.

Diane Foley now alleges that national security officials threatened her with prosecution if she continued to raise money to pay a ransom for her son. Indeed, U.S. law now prohibits the government from negotiating with terrorists. It’s unclear — to me at least — just how Ms. Foley intended to pay the money if she was able to raise the amount the terrorists demanded.

Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s in Turkey seeking to build an international coalition to fight ISIL — adamantly denies any personal knowledge of a prosecution threat. Kerry told reporters: “I can tell you that I am totally unaware and would not condone anybody that I know of within the State Department making such statements.”

Quite clearly nothing can bring James Foley back. As for U.S. law prohibiting negotiating with terrorists, it needs to stay on the books.

A mother’s grief is overwhelming. A nation still mourns her son’s gruesome death. But let’s not overlay that grief with an understanding of what the government did — or couldn’t do under the law — to secure her son’s freedom.

Let’s concentrate instead on finding the murderers and administering battlefield “justice,” which is what the president and secretary of state already have vowed to do.

International news, national news, political news

OK, it's official: We're at war

Is it war or is it a counter-terrorism campaign?

I’d thought out loud in an earlier blog post that the terminology didn’t matter. We’re going after the Islamic State with heavy weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s been to war … in Vietnam — was reluctant to use that term. Now the commander in chief, Barack Obama, says we’re “at war” with ISIL.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html

Let’s be mindful, though, of what this “war” actually means, or doesn’t mean.

It doesn’t mean we’re going to take over a foreign capital, run up the Stars and Stripes and declare victory. Nor does it mean we’re going to receive surrender papers from a foreign government aboard some warship. It won’t result in our rebuilding (I hope) some nation that we’ve blown to smithereens trying to root out and kill terrorists.

What the “war” means is that we’re going to be in this fight for perhaps well past the foreseeable future. I suspect we’ll still be fighting this “war” when Barack Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017. He’ll hand the battle plans over to his successor, wish that person good luck and then the new commander in chief will be left with trying to kill all the ISIL fighters our military can find.

The war against terrorism is something we launched after 9/11. Everyone in America knew the war wouldn’t have an end date. Heck, there really wasn’t an strategy to conclude the war when President Bush declared it after the terrorists killed thousands of Americans on that terrible Tuesday morning 13 years ago.

I still don’t give a damn what we call this conflict. If it’s war, then we’re going to have to redefine how we know when it’s over.

First, though, we’ll likely have to redefine when it ends. Good luck with that.