Category Archives: political news

International news, national news, political news

Benghazi hearings actually can be constructive

2 Comments

Here we go.

A congressional select committee of House members has convened a series of hearings on Benghazi, which has become shorthand for “How do we derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations?”

The committee chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is going to replow some ground that’s been tossed, turned and examined to the hilt on what happened on Sept. 11, 2012 when terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

The event occurred when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. It’s been a talking point ever since among right-wing critics of the Obama administration — and that includes conservative mainstream media.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218014-benghazi-chairman-opens-first-hearing-says-its-not-time-to-move-on

What will the committee learn that it doesn’t already know about what happened? Probably not a damn thing.

Here, though, is where the hearings can prove constructive.

They can ascertain whether we’ve done enough to improve embassy and consulate security in the two years since that horrible attack.

I hope that’s the goal. I hope that we can determine if we’ve learned from the mistakes committed during that horrible fire fight.

Gowdy opened the hearings with this statement: “We do not suffer from a lack of recommendations. We do not suffer from a lack of boards, commissions and blue ribbon panels. We suffer from a lack of implementing and enacting those recommendations. That must end.”

OK. Then find out what needs to be implemented, make a recommendation, file a report and put it on the record.

The longer this matter remains a political talking point, the more it will take on the appearance of what some of us believe already: a witch hunt.

International news, national news, political news

Syria aid is on its way

Well, it looks as though the United States of America is going to enter the Syria conflict after all.

Congress likely will approve President Obama’s request for authorization to train and equip “moderate” Syrian rebels as they prepare to take on the Islamic State — and the government forces led by Bashar al-Assad.

Lawmakers: We will pass Syria aid

Yes, it will come with some complaints from both sides of the aisle.

Obama was right to ask for authorization. Congress is right to grant it.

Is it the right call to equip the rebels? That remains to be seen.

The Syrian civil war is getting complicated in the extreme. We don’t yet know fully who the “good guys” are in this fight. We’ve identified some definite evil forces — two of whom are fighting each other. ISIL is battling the government led by the dictator. We hate the dictator, but we hate ISIL even more, given the gruesome murders the terrorists have committed against two American journalists and a British aid worker.

I remain concerned deeply about whether we should send in troops while bombing the daylights out of ISIL military positions in Iraq. That discussion has been broached by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, who today said he’d consider sending in special ops forces if the need arose, pending approval by the commander in chief, Barack Obama.

Congress has a role to play here. Its members need to sign on and take ownership of a conflict that is beginning to take on the look of a new war.

Heaven help us.

national news, political news

GOP saying 'yes' to Obama

Hey, what gives here?

Congressional Republicans, those guys and gals who made it their mission to make Barack Obama a “one-term president,” are starting to sound accommodating to the president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/house-republicans-say-yes-to-obama-110987.html?hp=t1

They’re set to extend the Ex-Im Bank charter, approve a budget next year without a fight and they appear ready to approve a request to authorize U.S. air strikes while arming and training rebels in Syria, according to Politico.

It might be that Republicans are sensing they’re going to win control of the Senate after the mid-term election. So perhaps they’re feeling a big magnanimous toward their foes on the other side of the aisle.

I’m not holding my breath that the GOP will start to actually govern rather than obstruct the president’s efforts at crafting an agenda.

Here’s how Politico reports it:

“The forthcoming deals represent a big swing on Capitol Hill. Just a year ago, House Republicans were locked in a bitter battle with Obama over repealing his signature health care law, leading to a 16-day government shutdown that left both sides bruised.

“Now — with less than 50 days until the midterms — Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise want nothing to do with Washington and its potential drag on Republicans’ sunny electoral fortunes.”

So it appears to be a pragmatic turn. Whatever the case might be, Republicans seem to grasp the political risk associated with continuing the gridlock that shuts down the government that is supposed to serve the people who send them to Capitol Hill.

International news, national news, political news

Iraqi slope getting slippery

That slope that leads into Iraq is getting more slippery all the time.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said it is “possible” that American ground troops will be brought back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State.

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-scrutinizes-obama-military-strategy-070816643–politics.html

I believe this is the kind of thing the commander in chief, President Obama, said won’t happen.

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Gen. Dempsey said in a testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Will the president heed the advice of his top military adviser? Therein lies the stickiest of wickets possible for the president.

His critics say the United States cannot defeat the Islamic State with just air power. They also suggest that our coalition-building, which worked pretty well in advance of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, is insufficient as well.

So, does the president act on his instincts and stay the course, which means “no boots on the ground” in Iraq? Or does he follow the advice of a team of four-star military brass — all of whom have substantial combat experience — and send “advisers” in with Iraqi troops to root out ISIL terrorists?

Can you say “conundrum”?

It’s my fervent hope that whatever “boots” hit the ground in Iraq remain on the feet of advisers and not on those of infantry or other troops trained in the combat arms.

Meanwhile, keep dropping bombs on the bad guys.

International news, national news, political news, State news

Immigration crisis to re-emerge

Am I the only one who wonders how certain compelling crises get pushed so easily off the front burner when other compelling crises emerge?

The refugee crisis on our southern border is an example. Remember that one?

Thousands of young people were fleeing into the United States to escape human traffickers in their home country. We were rounding them up, putting them in detention camps and wondering out loud what we were going to do with those children.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/15/cuellar-immigration-changes-likely-coming-later-ye/

Then the crisis in Iraq and Syria erupted with a vengeance.

It’s displaced everything else we deemed critical: the kidnapping of those girls in Nigeria, Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

The refugee crisis is still boiling. It’s going to return to the public’s eye soon, says U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

It will return in the form of a continuing budget resolution, Cuellar said, according to the Texas Tribune: “Cuellar said Friday during a border legislative conference that the issue would not be part of the debate on a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded. That resolution is expected to be passed this month.” Instead, he said, it’ll come up later. “When the omnibus bill comes up in December, hopefully we can sit down and work something out on that particular aspect,” Cuellar said.

OK, but isn’t the refugee matter still a critical concern? Of course it is.

Let’s intermingle the Islamic State crisis with it as well, given that critics of President Obama’s anti-ISIL strategy keep suggesting that the terrorists are going to infiltrate the United States along its “porous” and “unprotected” southern border.

Multi-tasking is taking on a new meaning in Washington, D.C., and in Austin. Our elected leaders in both places had better stay sharp. Or else.

political news, State news

Abbott looking past this year's contest

Paul Burka has put forth an interesting theory on why Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott keeps raising money even though he appears to have the race for governor all but sewn up.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/abbott-and-money-machine

He’s looking past Democratic challenger Wendy Davis and looking ahead to what might be a formidable challenge from within his own Republican Party.

Dan Patrick — who, in my view at least, is less of a cinch to win the lieutenant governor’s race in November — likely is going to run for governor in 2018, Burka believes.

Don’t misunderstand: When I say “less of a cinch,” I don’t mean to suggest that Democrat Leticia Van de Putte is going to win the lieutenant governor’s race. It’s just that it’s going to be more competitive than the race for governor. Van de Putte even might scare Patrick just a bit.

Patrick has his eyes on some big prizes down the road. First, though, he’ll have to defeat Abbott in four years if that contest is in the cards.

I’m not sure before the current election cycle is over what precisely would drive Patrick to challenge Abbott. They’re both singing off the same tea party song sheet. They’re both tacking far, far to the right. They’re practically joined at the hip with regard to abortion, taxes, legislative protocol, education spending.

It might be that Patrick will conclude in, say, two years that Abbott isn’t crazy enough to suit his taste.

So, as Burka writes in his Texas Monthly blog, Patrick is setting the stage for what well could  become a GOP donnybrook … and Abbott is getting ready for him.

I can hardly wait.

national news, political news, Sports news, State news

Peterson case getting complicated

1 Comment

I’m trying to wrap my arms around the case of Adrian Peterson.

This one is much tougher to grasp than, say, the case of Ray Rice, the former Baltimore Ravens running back who cold-cocked his fiancée and was suspended by the National Football League.

Peterson’s case involves his parental discipline techniques. He’s been indicted for inflicting injury to his 4-year-old son while disciplining him. The Minnesota Vikings running back — who’d been benched when the indictment alleging criminal activity came down — is going to play on Sunday.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11534340/adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings-facing-second-child-abuse-accusation

Does the Peterson case rise to the level of the Rice case? Not in my eyes.

But now we hear about injuries inflicted by Peterson on another of his sons.

I’ve heard the comments from those who wondered whether we’ve gotten too “soft.” They bemoan the fact that their spankings by parents using switches — as Peterson did on his son — are now considered “child abuse.” I’m trying to keep an open mind on this one.

I don’t like what I’ve heard about the injury suffered by the little boy. Do they constitute child abuse under the law? Peterson says he never intended to inflict such injury, that he was just administering punishment similar to what he got as a boy growing up in East Texas.

About the only conclusion I can draw so far about the Peterson case is that it doesn’t come close to the kind of violence inflicted by other professional athletes against their spouses and/or girlfriend, i.e., the Ray Rice matter.

This one is causing me some heartburn.

I don’t condone Peterson’s attempt to discipline his young children. But I am not yet willing to accept that he deserves the kind of scorn that is being heaped on Ray Rice.

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.