Category Archives: national news

International news, national news, political news

GOP Rep. Cole tamps down Obama criticism

U.S. Rep. Tom Cole must be running a fever. Perhaps he’s been in the hot Oklahoma sun too long.

The Republican lawmaker actually saidĀ President Obama is being “commendably cautious” about developing a strategyĀ to deal with ISIL.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/tom-cole-obama-isil-110443.html?hp=l4

Commendably cautious? What’s going on here?

Cole is one of the few GOP lawmakers toĀ suggest that Obama shouldn’t be rushed into developing such a strategy. Indeed, Cole noted that the White House has crafted “the elements of a strategy” already.

I’m one of those who said the other day that the president needs to get cracking on a strategy to deal with ISIL, the notorious terrorist group that many experts say makes al-Qaeda look like a Boy Scout troop.Ā I still believe the president shouldn’t waste time.

Then again, it’s refreshing to hear at least one leading congressional Republican suggest that critics are hyperventilating needlessly.

Cole takes appropriate note of the complexities facing the White House in the Syria conflict. Bashar al-Assad is fighting ISIL. The United States hardly is Assad’s friend. Indeed, President Obama has called for Assad’s ouster. Who should replace him? Certainly no one who’s friends with ISIL.

Therein lies the president’s “commendable caution.”

 

 

 

International news, national news, political news

Benghazi hearings could end quickly

The chairman of a congressional committee looking into the Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11. 2012 says the probe will conclude sometime in 2015.

Good deal.

For my money, though, the deal could be done by the end of 2014. Heck, it could be finished in the next two weeks..

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/216223-gowdy-benghazi-probe-should-be-over-by-end-of-2015

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is chairing a select committee’s examination — yep, we’re getting another one — into the Benghazi fire fight and terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city. The attack killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

The target of this probe clearly is then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s been accused of trying to cover up what happened that terrible day. Of course, there’s been no independent corroboration of any deliberate cover-up of the event. That hasn’t dissuaded House Republicans from continuing to look high and low for answers to questions arising from the fire fight.

This ground has been plowed and re-plowed time and again. However, by golly, the House select panel is going to keep looking for something to hang on Clinton, a probable candidate for president in 2016.

Americans need to hold Chairman Gowdy to his prediction that his panel will finish its work sometime in the coming year.

I’ll say this for Trey Gowdy: He’s laid down a serious marker that won’t get lost amid all the political chaos that’s about to swarm all across Capitol Hill.

 

national news, political news

Tan suit chatter turns puzzling

This is a head-scratcher.

Social media kinda/sorta went off the rails today when President Barack Obama showed up in the White House Brady Press Briefing Room wearing — get ready for it — a tan suit.

I only can conclude that some folks out there in Cyberland have too much time on their hands.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/tan-suit-barack-obama-110428.html?hp=l7

Heck, I suppose you can the same thing about me, as I’m commenting briefly on this matter.

This is just a matter of personal taste, I suppose, but I thought he looked pretty good today in tan. Should he have worn a dark blue suit, or perhaps a black one, given that he was talking about serious matters of state? I don’t know. Nor do I really care.

I was struck a little by the Twitter chatter over the tan suit by my recollection of how President Gerald Ford dressed as he was toiling in the White House back in the 1970s. If you’re old enough, you might remember seeing President Ford attired in a plaid suit.

Then again, that was long before age of social media. Twitter and Facebook didn’t exist. I don’t recall fashionistas commenting then about the president’s wardrobe. I guess the president had other things on his mind — and we had other things on our minds to be concerned about such trivial stuff.

Oh, but I forgot. Some folks actually poked at Barack Obama because he didn’t wear a tie while commenting on the hideous murder of an American at the hands of terrorists in Syria.

Let’s all give it a rest. Tan is a perfectly proper suit to wear. Stick to issues that matter.

Thus, this will be the only timeĀ I willĀ comment on Barack Obama’s choice of suit color.

 

national news, Sports news

NFL gets it right on domestic abuse

When was the last time you heard a leading public figure who administers a major public and/or entertainment enterprise admit he got something wrong?

It’s been some time, yes?

Well, National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell did that very thing today when the league announced a new policy regarding players involved in cases of domestic violence.

Goodell Gets It Right with Sweeping Changes to NFL's Domestic Violence Policy

This wasn’t a surprise. It was a welcome change nevertheless.

The NFL has instituted a policy of severe punishment for players who beat up their spouses, girlfriends or assorted “loved ones.” The new penalties include a potential lifetime ban from the NFL if the player is caught a second or subsequent time. Initial offenses will result in a suspension of at least six games.

The revised policy comes in the wake of a terrible decision to suspend Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice for just two games after he was seen on video beating his then-fiancƩe unconscious. Rice has since married the woman he beat up.

The so-called “punishment” brought a torrent of criticism on Goodell and the league for tolerating such behavior and for invoking such limited sanction against the offending player.

Goodell said this in response to the Rice sanction: “I take responsibility both for the decision and for ensuring that our actions in the future properly reflect our values. I didn’t get it right. Simply put, we have to do better. And we will.”

As of today, the NFL has done better.

 

national news, political news

McConnell campaign goes national

It’s interesting to me how some ostensibly local races gain national attention.

One of them involves Kentucky Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who’s in a tough for fight for re-election against Democratic nominee Allison Lundergan Grimes.

McConnell’s future is the subject if a large New York Times Magazine article by Jonathon Miller.

Grimes isn’t going to accept any political advice from yours truly, but I’ll offer it anyway.

If she wants to hang something around McConnell’s neck, she ought to dig up the video of McConnell saying that his No. 1 goal, his top priority back in 2009 was to make Barack Obama a “one-term president.” He’d block everything the president proposes. He would fight him every step of the way. He would obstruct and derail every initiative coming from the White House.

That’s what McConnell said. He said it with emphasis. By golly, I believe he meant it. It was a promise he made to the nation, not to mention to the people of Kentucky.

How didĀ the Senate’s minority leaderĀ deliver on his promise to the nation? Not very well. President Obama was re-elected in 2012 with 65 million votes, 51.7 percent of the total, 332 electoral votes.

So, Sen. McConnell’s top priority will have gone unmet.

Grimes ought to make that a signature issue of her campaign, along with whatever positive alternatives she proposes if she wins the Senate seat.

I think it’s a winner.

 

national news, political news

Hillary vs. Mitt in 2016 … seriously?

This just in: A new Iowa poll says Mitt Romney is miles ahead in a poll of 2016 Republican caucus participants.

Run, Mitt, run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitt-romney-2016-election-iowa-poll-110392.html?hp=r2

The 2012 Republican presidential nomineeĀ has dropped a hint or two that might be thinking about a third run for the presidency in 2016. He lost the GOP nomination to John McCain in 2008, then got thumped — surprisingly, in the eyes of many — two years ago when President Obama thumped with a decisive Electoral College victory.

“Circumstances could change,” Mitt said recently when asked about a possible run once again for the White House.

What might those circumstances be? Only he and, I presume, his wife Ann, know the answer. OK, throw in his five sons; they’ll know when something is up.

Frankly, I’d like to see Mitt go again. I am curious to see if the Olympic organizer/business mogul/former Massachusetts governor has learned from the mistakes that might have cost him the White House in 2012. Will he steer clear of “47 percent” comments? Will he refrain from saying that “corporations are people, too, my friend”? Will he forgo making $10,000 wager offers on a debate stage with other Republican rivals?

He might also be a bit more specific than he’s been about how he’d handle these international crises differently than the man who beat him in 2012.

For my money, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the candidate to beat in 2016, even though she’s looking less inevitable than she was looking about six months ago.

Mitt, though, could give her a tussle.

You go, Mitt.

International news, national news, political news

An emphatic 'no!' on paying ransom

Why in the world are we even debating this issue of paying ransom for hostages held by terror groups?

Yet we are at some level.

http://video.kacvtv.org/video/2365314751/

The policy long has been that the U.S. government doesn’t pay ransom. It instead by seeking to egotiate with the terrorists to persuade them it is in their best interest to let their captives go. If that tactic fails, then the government responds with military force or it seeks to rescue the captives.

The issue has come to light with the tragic murder by ISIS terrorists of journalist James Foley and the release by another terror group of Peter Theo Curtis. We learned shortly after Foley’s gruesome death that U.S. forces failed in a rescue attempt.

I don’t have a particular problem with allowing the families and friends of these captives seeking to pony up money to secure their release, even though such action usually does interfere with official negotiations under way to accomplish the same thing.

The very idea, though, of the government paying ransom is repugnant on its face. It sets a monetary value on someone’s life that in effect cheapens it.

Terror organizations must not be legitimized by, in effect, rewarding them for the terrible acts they commit. They need to be hunted down and arrested — or killed.

 

national news, political news

Yes, guns do kill people

3 Comments

A 9-year-old Arizona girl has become the poster child for gun-safety reform.

This isn’t a pretty story and it speaks to adult stupidity and carelessness as much as it does to anything else.

The girl was firing an Uzi automatic assault rifle on a firing range when it the instructor told her to pull the triggerĀ  to fire a several-round burst. The recoil of the Uzi pulled the weapon upward and the instructor was shot in the head. He later died.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/opinion/robbins-why-was-child-firing-uzi/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

And so here we are debating whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is so damn sacred that it prevents government from enacting laws that keep these weapons out of the hands of little children.

What on God’s planet Earth have we come to?

The debate is going rage on. Should we make such laws? Absolutely, we should.

Mel Robbins, a firearms expert, writes for CNN.com about the tragedy. She notes that the incident isn’t really the little girl’s fault. The instructor was standing in the wrong place. What’s more, the instructor told the girl to put the weapon in fully automatic mode.

What happened to the man is tragic beyond measure.

But what in the world are we doing allowing little children to handle these kinds of deadly weapons in the first place, even in what’s supposed to be a “controlled environment”?

As Robbins notes in her CNN.com essay: “Kids can’t drive until they’re 16, vote, chew tobacco or smoke until they’re 18, or drink until they’re 21. No child should have access to firing a fully automatic weapon until the age of 18. And gun ranges should know better than to hand one to a novice shooter passing through on vacation, let alone one as young as 9.”

The National Rifle Association so far has been quiet on this incident. Don’t expect the nation’s premier gun-owner rights group to remain silent. The NRA brass can be expected to come up with some kind of rationale for preventing the enactment of laws that keep guns out of little children’s hands.

In the process, the NRA very well could demonstrate — yet again — how out of touch with American public opinion it has become.

 

 

International news, national news, political news

Ready, set, bombs away!

Back and forth we go.

Congressional Republicans are so angry at President Obama that they want to sue him for taking on too much executive authority to get things done. Now comes a report that the White House is considering air strikes against targets in Syria.

The response from Congress, from Democrats and Republicans? Ask us for authorization, Mr. President, before you unleash our air power.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215962-corker-congress-must-authorize-airstrikes-in-syria

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., says the president should seek congressional approval. So has Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. Others on both sides of the aisle say the same thing.

They’re likely correct to request congressional approval. Recall that Obama earlier decided to seek congressional authorization after he threatened to hit the Syrian government over its use of chemical weapons on its people. Then the Russians intervened and brokered a deal to get the Syrians to surrender the WMD; they did and the weapons have been destroyed.

Congressional approval is likely the prudent course, given that the president has so few allies on Capitol Hill upon whom he can depend.

It’s fair to ask, though, whether senators like Corker and Kaine are going to stand with the commander in chief when the vote comes. If they’re going to demand congressional approval, then I hope they don’t double-cross Barack Obama with a “no” vote.

Obama reportedly wants to hit ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. He’s already authorized the use of surveillance aircraft to look for targets. I continue to hold out concern about where all this might lead.

I’ll say this next part slowly: I do not want my country to go to war … again. I’ve had enough. I do not want ground troops sent back to Iraq, where we’ve bled too heavily already.

But if we can lend our considerable and deadly air power to the struggle to rid the world of ISIS, then let’s get the job done.

Ā 

International news, national news

U.S.-born ISIS fighter is dead

All the hand-wringing over the use of drones to target terrorists who might be American citizens makes me angry.

U.S. airpower struck at a U.S. citizen who had been working with al-Qaeda in Yemen. Our ordnance killed him and civil libertarians and others lamented the lack of “due process” given to the young man before the missile blew him away.

Too bad for that.

Now comes word that another young American, someone named Douglas McCain, was killed in a battle among terror groups in Syria. McCain had been recruited by ISIS, which is fighting governments in Syria and Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/world/meast/syria-american-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Will there more hand-wringing over this one? Probably not, given that he died at the hands of another extremist group. Suppose, though, he’d been killed by U.S. forces. Suppose further that those forces knew that an American was shooting back at him and that he intended to kill whoever he could hit.

Would we have legal and moral standing to kill someone who had renounced his country and taken up arms with the enemy?

Absolutely.

I’m as progressive as anyone on many issues. When it comes, however, to “protecting the rights” of Americans who turn on their country, all bets are off.

My curiosity goes only so far as to wonder what drives Americans to join forces with enemy combatants.

I don’t know the first thing about Douglas McCain and what lured him into the embrace of a hideous terrorist organization. To be honest, I don’t particularly care to know.

What’s left to ponder only is that someone who had declared himself to be an enemy of the country of his birth is now dead.

Whether he died at the hands of other bad guys or at the hands of our soldiers wouldn’t matter to me one little bit.

Ā