media news

Of course the question was intended to offend

Major Garrett, CBS News’s chief White House correspondent, and I have something in common.

We both worked for the same person, although at different times.

How’s that for name-dropping?

Garrett went to work for the Amarillo Globe-News back in the old days. The then-editor of the paper, Garet von Netzer, hired him; von Netzer later would become publisher of the paper and then he hired yours truly, although long after Garrett had moved on.

Having laid down that useless predicate, let me now say that Major Garrett asked a patently offensive question of President Obama, to which the president responded appropriately.

The question involved four Americans held captive in Iran and Garrett wondered how the president could be “content” that they’re still being held on trumped-up charges while he is “celebrating” the nuclear deal worked out with the Islamic Republic.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-major-garrett-shuts-down-press-conference-120156.html?hp=b2_r1

Obama took offense at the tone of the question. He scolded Garrett, saying he “should know better” than to ask a question that contained “nonsense.”

The president said he isn’t “content” over the Americans’ continued captivity and said he and his team are “working diligently” to secure freedom for the individuals.

What irks me about the question and its aftermath is how Major Garrett insisted it wasn’t intended to ruffle the president. He didn’t apologize and he said it was not asked to call attention to himself.

May I be blunt? That’s pure baloney.

That’s how it goes among the White House press corps. It’s always about getting in a question intended to call attention to the inquiry and to the person making it. Such gamesmanship has been going on for, oh, since the beginning of these televised events dating back to the days when President Kennedy introduced them to the public and turned them into some form of entertainment.

CBS’s Dan Rather famously sought to get under President Nixon’s skin during the Watergate scandal; ABC’s Sam Donaldson did the same thing to President Reagan over the course of many years; Fox’s Ed Henry does the same thing today with President Obama.

Well, now Henry and others have company in the “gotcha” hall of fame.

Major Garrett asked an appropriate question. He just inserted a certain word — “content” — that framed it in a way that got Barack Obama’s dander up.

I would bet that was his intent all along.

 

International news

Diplomacy ought to trump war every time

2 Comments

Barack Obama could have invoked the late, great Winston Churchill at his press conference today.

Churchill once said it is better to “jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war.”

So it is with President Obama’s defense of the deal struck with Iran that seeks to end Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-iran-deal-defends-press-conference-120154.html?hp=lc1_4

I remain more or less undecided on the merits of the deal, but the president has posed a fascinating challenge to his critics.

Is it better to take military action to remove Iran’s nuclear capability, or is it better to use diplomacy to rid them of their nuclear ambitions?

Critics, Obama said, haven’t offered a credible alternative to the deal that struck by Secretary of State John Kerry and his team of international partners. They blast the 159-page deal with words like “appeasement,” “disaster,” and “historic mistake.”

So, what do they suggest? Do we send in squadrons of fighter-bombers to blast the nuclear plants into oblivion? Let the Israelis do it? Do we risk all-out war?

The great Winston Churchill had it right: It’s better to talk than to drop bombs.

Always.

national news

Iran, nukes … and Bill Cosby

Well, that about covers it.

President Obama’s press conference today was meant to explain the details of the recently completed negotiation to stop Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.

Then the question turned to Bill Cosby and whether the president could revoke the comedic icon’s Presidential Medal of Freedom on the basis of the rape charges that have been leveled against him by several women.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/asked-about-cosby-obama-says-civilized-nations-cannot-tolerate-rape/ar-AAd1eHQ

Obama’s answer was deft and on point.

There’s no precedent for revoking such a medal and there’s no mechanism now to do it, he said.

Cosby received the medal in 2002 from President George W. Bush. The world didn’t know what it knows now of what Cosby allegedly has done. It’s been reported recently that court documents show that he admitted to giving Quaaludes to women and then had sex with them.

It’s all quite disgusting.

Obama then ventured his own view on what he considers to be rape. “I’ll say this: if you give a woman, or a man for that matter, without his or her knowledge a drug and then have sex with that person without consent, that’s rape,” the president said.

OK. By my understanding of what is known, I believe Bill Cosby has admitted to being a rapist.

Should the White House revoke his Medal of Freedom?

Leave the issue alone — and let Bill Cosby try to fend off the lawsuits that are going to bury him.

International news, Intgernational news, State news

‘Inside job’ helped free El Chapo?

U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul is on point with an assertion that Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman had inside help when he escaped from that maximum-security prison in Mexico.

The Texas Republican’s contention also adds a serious twist to the difficulty in protecting our territory against foreign enemies. They’re right across our borders.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/14/mccaul-absurd-think-guzman-fled-without-inside-hel/

McCaul chairs the House Homeland Security Committee and he has said that in order for the notorious and highly dangerous drug kingpin to escape from prison he needed help from prison officials. That means Mexican government officials. And that also means we need to broaden our attention to those who would do us harm to those who live on our very continent.

OK, so it’s not exactly a scoop to suggest that danger lurks far closer than the Middle East, South Asia, or East Africa.

McCaul’s comments come after a leading Democrat on the House panel, Filemon Vela, also of Texas, leveled a similar blast at Mexican authorities. So the concern and the fear cross party lines.

“The idea that there wasn’t a complicity and corruption going on when you got a mile-long tunnel underneath the facility is absolutely absurd,” McCaul said on CNN.

Here’s an idea: When the authorities capture Guzman, let’s redouble our efforts to extradite him to the United States, where he and his drug cartel inflict most of their damage. McCaul and others in Congress tried, and failed, after Guzman’s first escape from maximum-security.

Let’s also hope the authorities can capture this monster quickly.

International news

Who sold arms to Iran?

This video is quite instructive.

President Reagan went on the air in March 1987 to explain why he sold arms to Iran in exchange for money that he would use to seek to topple the Marxist government in Nicaragua.

The late president today remains a conservative icon to those who revere the policies he instituted during his two terms in office.

Those admirers are going ballistic — no pun intended — over a nuclear deal brokered by another president, Barack Obama, that seeks to disarm Iran and intends to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. Why, they just cannot fathom how we could negotiate with those who would refer to the United States as the Great Satan and who would sponsor terrorist activities around the globe.

What, then, was President Reagan doing when he sold weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran less than a decade after the radicals seized our embassy in Tehran, held our citizens hostage for 444 days and threatened to blow up the Middle East during that entire time?

Have those folks forgotten all that?

Watch the video. President Reagan said his “heart” told him he wasn’t doing what the facts proved he was doing. He was selling arms to an enemy state.

 

International news, media news

Too early to judge Iran nuke deal

Listen to the mainstream media on both ends — conservative and liberal — and the Iran nuclear deal is either the precursor to World War III or the agreement that will bring a comprehensive peace to a region that’s never known it.

Fox News this morning was having its usual fun blasting the “liberal mainstream media” for gushing all over the deal that seeks to block Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. The caption on the screen as the “Fox and Friends” talking heads were blathering on noted “liberal bias” in the media’s coverage of the agreement. That stuff just slays me, given that Fox never recognizes its own conservative bias.

Whatever.

I’m not going to draw any firm conclusions about the deal just yet.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obama-team-split-over-next-steps-with-iran-120130.html?hp=lc1_4

I remain cautiously hopeful that the deal will produce the desired result. One of the Obama administration talking points is that it “blocks all pathways” for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Israeli officials — led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — say it’s dangerous in the extreme, as it doesn’t prevent Iran from making mischief in the Middle East.

The economic sanctions? They’ll be lifted over time, giving Iran needed money to rebuild its shattered economy — which was made that way by the sanctions.

What if Iran cheats? What if the Iranians don’t do what they say? The sanctions return.

Is the deal perfect? No. Is it the disaster that congressional Republicans predict it will become? No.

The mainstream media — all of it all along the political spectrum — need to take a breath and listen intently to the debate that’s about to unfold.

Assuming, of course, that the debate isn’t overtaken by hysterical politicians.

 

national news

Heritage? OK, let’s talk about it

1 Comment

All this talk about the Confederate battle flag has ignited a side discussion.

It deals with “heritage.”

There are those who contend that the battle flag doesn’t symbolize hatred, bigotry and enslavement. It symbolized people’s “heritage.” They say it’s a historical symbol that embodies a region’s pride.

Interesting, don’t you think?

The South Carolina Legislature’s decision to strike the flag from the statehouse grounds was a welcomed event to many of us. I cheer the fact that the flag is now down. It was put there to protest the Voting Rights Act of the 1960s.

The flag, of course, is displayed prominently at Ku Klux Klan rallies. I don’t need to remind you what the KKK stands for.

Heritage? Do we want to look at other elements of our nation’s heritage? Do we want to salute these chapters?

* Our heritage denied women the right to vote from the founding of the Republic until 1920. Do we celebrate that denial?

* U.S. heritage also contains the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during much of World War II after the Roosevelt administration decided it couldn’t trust these Americans to be loyal to their country. Hey, let’s celebrate that event, too.

* Native Americans had their land taken from them as settlers marched westward in their conquest of our continent. Oh, and those settlers slaughtered millions of head of bison along the way. Let’s honor that, too.

The word “heritage” has become almost a throw-away line in the discussion about the Confederate battle flag.

The flag that’s been part of this discussion flew over the Army of Northern Virginia, which fought with other Confederate forces to tear apart the United States of America. The Confederates State of America sought to form a new nation and sought to preserve the right of human beings to own fellow human beings.

That’s the heritage some Americans want to honor?

No thank you.

International news, local news, national news

Where is LBJ when you need him?

1 Comment

Barack H. Obama needs to channel Lyndon B. Johnson.

In a big way.

President Obama’s negotiating team — led by Secretary of State John Kerry — has just brokered a deal that cuts off Iran’s path to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

But not only are congressional Republicans opposed to the deal — which is no surprise in the least — but congressional Democrats appear to be skeptical of the deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/key-democrats-skeptical-of-iran-deal-120123.html?hp=t1_r

How does LBJ play into this? I’m trying to imagine congressional Democrats bucking ol’ Lyndon, who was legendary in his ability to cajole his former congressional colleagues into seeing things his way.

Vote with me, or else I’m going to make your life holy hell, he would tell friend and foe alike. There was not disputing LBJ’s sincerity. When he said he’d make congressmen and women’s lives uncomfortable, he meant it.

Former Amarillo College President Paul Matney, who is no slouch as a political observer, once told me he thought Obama’s greatest weakness as president was his lack of congressional relationships. He served only three years in the Senate before being elected president in 2008 and hadn’t built a large cache of friends on Capitol Hill upon whom he could depend when the going gets tough.

It’s going to get quite tough in the weeks ahead as the president seeks to sell the details of his Iran nuclear deal to members of both parties.

Imagine Democrats telling Lyndon Johnson that they’re skeptical of a deal negotiated by a presidential team of the same party.

As for President Obama’s efforts to sell this deal — which I believe has the potential for bringing a more comprehensive peace to the Middle East — well, good luck, Mr. President.

local news

Water, water everywhere … in Amarillo!

It’s been longer than many of us can remember when Amarillo city officials have fielded inquiries about what to do with excess water.

Greenways Lake is a privately owned playa at the far southwest corner of the city. Residents there asked the city for help in getting rid of the water. The city response? No can do. The water is the responsibility of the developers.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/29539795/lakes

Meanwhile, the city is having to deal with playas at other publicly owned sites, such as nearby McDonald Lake at the corner of John Stiff Memorial Park at 45th Avenue and Coulter Street.

I’ve got some interest in the McDonald Lake problem, as it sits just about 3/4-mile from my house — not that we’re in danger of flooding in my neighborhood.

Still, the rising water has closed the park entrance at the lake; water has inundated the walkway around the lake and covered up the park benches.

I feel for the city in having to deal with this problem.

We’ve endured years of drought conditions. We haven’t had this much rain since, well, many years ago.

As for residents living near the privately owned lake at the Greenways residential development, city officials fear the consequence of pumping water from private property and possibly affecting other residents.

It’s one thing to have practical knowledge of how to react to lack of moisture. It’s quite another to acquire it quickly when we’ve got too much of it.

 

International news

Iran deal struck; now the fight begins

iran nuke deal

At some level, I totally understand Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suspicion of Iran.

When a country’s leader declares his mission to wipe your country off the map, you take such threats seriously. That’s what Iranian leaders have vowed to do to Israel.

Bibi doesn’t trust the Iranians as far as he can toss any of them.

However, is the deal struck with Iran by the United States and other world powers a waste of time and effort? I do not believe so.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/us-world-powers-historic-deal-iran-120076.html?hp=rc1_4

They’ve reached a deal that — on paper — eliminates Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon. In return, the world powers will lift the economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

That’s the deal breaker, according to critics in Washington — namely the Republican congressional leaders, who vow to kill the deal.

Hold on. There’s also language in the agreement that reserves the right to reinstate the sanctions if Iran reneges on any element of the deal. There also are inspection requirements that Iran will be forced to allow. Show us the progress you’re making, Iranian leaders, in dismantling your nuclear program … or else!

To no one’s surprise, the GOP presidential candidates vow to toss the deal into the trash if they’re elected president next year. For his part, President Obama remains confident that Congress would uphold a veto if he chooses to nix whatever moves the GOP makes to nix the agreement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-deal-got-lawmakers-react-kill-deal-120083.html?hp=t1_r

Moreover, as is usually the case with the critics, they aren’t offering alternatives. All they’re saying is that they hate the deal. Democrats are leery, too. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland said: “It is in America’s national security interest that Iran is blocked from ever having a nuclear weapon. There is no trust when it comes to Iran.

Oh, and Netanyahu’s concern about his country’s security? Barack Obama has declared — for the umpteenth time — that the United States remains as committed as ever to protecting its strongest and most reliable Middle East ally. What more must the president do to persuade critics — on this issue — he means what he says?

Yes, the agreement is  historic. Let’s make it stick.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience