military news

Purple Hearts for Fort Hood victims? Yes

Do you want a more graphic demonstration of how the war against international terrorism has changed the rules of engagement?

Try this: Texas lawmakers are gathering at Fort Hood this morning to present 40 Purple Hearts to active-duty service personnel who were wounded in a 2009 shooting on the sprawling Army post.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/04/09/fort-hood-victims-be-awarded-purple-heart-medals/

Army Major Nidal Hasan was convicted of murdering 13 people in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage and has been sentenced to death for his crime.

This is a deserving honor for the individuals wounded in the attack. Given that the international war on terror — and Hasan clearly committed a terrorist act when he opened fire at Fort Hood — has redefined the “battlefield,” the individuals deserve the Purple Hearts.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “Federal authorities initially classified the incident as workplace violence, and victims and their supporters spent years trying to convince the government to call the act terrorism so they could qualify for the Purple Heart and benefits that come with it. Hasan has said he planned the attack as a way of protecting Muslim insurgents abroad.”

Several Texas officials plan to attend the ceremony this morning. One of them, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz — an announced Republican presidential candidate — calls the award long overdue. “This attack was a clear act of radical Islamic terrorism, conducted on American soil — the original decision to designate it ‘workplace violence’ and deny these honors was a betrayal of the sacrifice of each of the victims,” Cruz said in a statement. “We can never undo the events of that day, but we can properly honor the courageous patriots who protect our nation and remain forever grateful for them.”

The government today will do the right thing by honoring those who wounded by Nidal Hasan.

 

International news

Obama set to meet Castro

President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro are going to attend a meeting together this weekend.

They’ll shake hands. They’ll talk to each other. They’ll likely exchange an idea or two about the changing relationship between their two countries. And much of the world will be hanging on every look, gesture and spoken word.

Is this a big deal? Yes. But perhaps not for reasons that some have given for it.

Obama, Raúl Castro get ready for historic meeting

This won’t be a meeting between equals. Obama is head of state of the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power. Castro heads a third-rate, Third World nation that folks once thought posed some sort of threat to the United States of America.

Cuba never really did pose that threat. What danger existed essentially evaporated right along with the Soviet Union in 1991. Still, U.S. and Cuban relations remained frozen in time.

That’s changing now that Obama and Castro have agreed to proceed toward normalization. The economic, travel and diplomatic embargoes are going to end in due course. Cuba will get to become an actual neighbor of the United States.

The leaders will meet at the Summit of the Americas. They shook hands briefly at a memorial service for the great Nelson Mandela a couple of years ago. This meeting is supposed to signal the start of a new relationship.

Yes, critics chide Obama for ignoring Cuba’s human rights issues. Sure thing. As if we don’t have diplomatic ties with other nations around the world with dubious human rights reputations. Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Pakistan, the People’s Republic of China — they all come to mind. I believe it was President Reagan who followed what was called a policy of “constructive engagement” with South Africa when that nation was operating under its apartheid policy that denied its black majority any rights of citizenship.

This meeting is long overdue. The Cuban Missile Crisis has receded into history. Raul Castro’s brother, Fidel, has retired from his lifetime job as president, is in frail health and appears to no longer be the commanding presence in the island nation.

The time arrived long ago for the nations to establish a formal relationship.

It’s good that Barack Obama and Raul Castro are going to that important step together.

national news, political news

No, Mr. Vice President; your boss was worse

Dick Cheney possesses an utterly amazing reservoir of gall.

The latest rant from the former vice president of the United States includes his “theory” that President Obama is trying to take the United States down “from within.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dick-cheney-obama-take-america-down

He calls Barack Obama the worst president in U.S. history.

There you have it. History is written by a vice president who, along with President Obama’s immediate predecessor, led the nation into a war in search of chemical weapons, but found none. They told us we’d be greeted as “liberators, not conquerors,” and we were wrong about that, too. They fundamentally misjudged the strength of the resistance within Iraq after the capture, trial and execution of Saddam Hussein.

And it was on their watch that the nation’s financial markets collapsed, along with the housing market and the automotive industry.

And he calls Barack Obama “the worst president” in American history?

He said this on conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt’s show: “I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.”

That’s it. Barack Obama wants to weaken the nation. He wants to reduce our influence in the world. He wants to encourage our adversaries.

I’m trying to find a more cynical view of any leading American politician.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s cynicism knows no boundaries.

International news

Sanctions lifted now, Iran? Think again

The world must have been hallucinating when the great powers announced that framework agreement with Iran that calls for the Iranians to scale back dramatically their nuclear development program.

Many of us out here thought for sure the economic sanctions on Iran would be lifted after the Iranians complied with each step of the agreement.

Now we hear from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that he wants the sanctions lifted before he puts his name on an agreement.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/iran-nuclear-bill/index.html

I must have been dreaming the agreement that was announced. How can the Iranian leader say with a straight face that the sanctions must go and then he’ll sign?

That’s how these things are supposed to go.

President Obama is facing a tough choice here. Does he stick with the agreement and try to talk Rouhani out of his nonsensical demand or does he possibly walk away from the deal?

Some on the right think he needs to walk away. Maybe, but not yet.

I think that the head of state of the world’s greatest military and economic power needs to tell Iran — through intermediaries, of course — that the sanctions are going to remain until the Iranians do what they’ve agreed to do. They’ve agreed to scale back their centrifuges and they’ve agreed to strict inspections from international observers.

If they comply with all they’ve agreed in principle to do, then the sanctions can come off.

Not before.

 

 

media news, national news, political news

Rand Paul plays 'standard shtick'

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul had a prickly interview with an NBC News reporter the other day.

According to another NBC news celeb, the Kentucky Republican is treading on some tricky territory if he keeps it up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/08/chuck_todd_rand_paul_played_standard_trick_with_savannah_guthrie_base_always_ginned_up_when_you_beat_up_the_press.html

Paul objected to a question posed by Savannah Guthrie and then proceeded to lecture her about talking over him while he tried to answer the question.

It’s not the first time Paul has done that, particularly with female reporters. Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd noted that conservative politicians like baiting the media because it “gins up” their base. Paul, of course, recently announced his candidacy for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2016.

This, of course, plays to the guts of the GOP’s criticism of the “liberal media,” which it contends treat progressive/liberal politicians with kid gloves while they don the brass knuckles when confronting conservative politicians.

Interesting, yes? I don’t believe Bill Clinton would agree with that. Nor would Jimmy Carter. Or former Congressman Anthony Weiner. And, yes, there have been other liberals who’ve taken their share of hits from their so-called “liberal brethren” in the media.

Sen. Paul has enough to offer Republican primary voters — and perhaps the general electorate — without getting in the face of reporters whose job is to probe and push for answers to difficult questions.

media news

How does Brian Williams come back?

The question keeps rolling through my noggin. I can’t stop wondering: How in the world does Brian Williams ever get back to the NBC Nightly News evening anchor desk?

The answer that keeps recurring? He doesn’t. He cannot come back. His credibility is blown to bits.

You see social media still joking about Williams. Things he has said in the past have been questioned by those who wonder if he made it up, as he did about his so-called shoot down in Iraq, when he said enemy rocket fire brought down a helicopter in which he was a passenger in 2003. It didn’t happen. Williams reported it correctly at first, then “misremembered” it in subsequent years as he kept retelling the fib about being aboard the helicopter when it was brought down by a rocket-propelled grenade.

NBC suspended him for six months.

He has said recently that he doesn’t know how he made the story up. He talked about a “brain tumor,” or some such nonsense.

The longer he stays off the air the more difficult it becomes for him to return to it in his previous capacity. The jokesters will continue to concoct gags at his expense. Every utterance he makes will be field-tested immediately to ensure its accuracy.

I think it’s time for NBC to shop around for a permanent replacement.

Indeed, something tells me the network already is looking.

International news

Iran, North Korea 'agreements' draw comparison

Is history going to repeat itself with this “framework agreement” regarding Iran’s nuclear program?

Oh, man. Let’s hope not.

Critics of the deal reached with Iran to scale back its nuclear development program are comparing it to a deal hammered out in 1994 between the United States and another rogue nation, North Korea. President Clinton hailed it then as a pact that would make the world safer. A dozen years, North Korea detonated its first nuclear device.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/echoes-of-clinton-in-obamas-awful-iran-deal/2015/04/06/e6a6b44c-dc59-11e4-acfe-cd057abefa9a_story.html

The world isn’t safer, obviously.

Now the world is watching to see how the Iran nuclear agreement plays out. President Obama is using many of the same terms that his predecessor did in hailing the North Korea agreement.

Here’s what I think ought to happen.

The Obama administration ought to be sure to take every lesson learned from the mistakes of the Clinton administration and be double-, maybe triple-dog sure it doesn’t repeat them.

Iran is supposed to reduce dramatically the number of its centrifuges. It’s supposed to allow international inspections. It’s supposed to guarantee that it won’t develop a nuclear bomb and that it will use its nuclear program purely for “peaceful purposes.” It must comply … or else.

And the “or else” must be a stiffening of economic sanctions on the country.

What’s more, the United States and its allies — and I include Israel in this group — cannot take the “military option” off the table.

Will history repeat itself? Not if we’ve learned anything from what history already has taught us.

national news

Yes, the 'world is watching'

The picture in the link attached to this blog post speaks volumes about modern life.

“The Whole World is Watching.”

So says the crude sign accompanying a New York Times editorial commenting on the shooting death of Walter Scott by former North Charleston, S.C., police officer Michael Slager.

This tragedy is going to stay with us for a long while.

Scott was black. Slager is white. Scott was running away from Slager when the officer fired eight rounds from his revolver, hitting Scott in the back. Scott was unarmed and he apparently died where he fell.

Slager has been charged with murder and was fired from his job.

And through it all, a young man with a camera in his smart phone captured it for the world to see.

There can be no way in the world that Slager will lie his way out of this one. He said something immediately afterward about fearing for his life. He feared an unarmed man who was running away from him? Yep. That’s what he said.

The Times commented: “The case underscores two problems that have become increasingly clear since the civic discord that erupted last year after the police killed black citizens in New York, Cleveland and Ferguson, Mo. The first, most pressing problem is that poorly trained and poorly supervised officers often use deadly force unnecessarily, particularly against minority citizens. The second is that the police get away with unjustly maiming or killing people by lying about the circumstances that prompted them to use force.”

There ought to be some serious heart-to-heart talks in police squad rooms all across the nation in the days and weeks to come about this incident.

The world is watching our police officers. Every moment of every day they’re on the job.

The latest video of a clear police atrocity needs to be part of police departments’ training regimen.

 

International news

Yes, we need more flight regulations

S.E. Cupp never has struck me as being a wacky conservative.

Yet the commentator and pundit has written a piece that suggests the Germanwings air tragedy caused by the suicidal co-pilot does not require airline companies and governments to tighten regulations aboard these flights.

Umm, yes it does.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/no-lessons-about-regulation-from-the-germanwings-crash-think-again-s-e-cupp.html/

U.S. air carriers operate under much stricter rules than foreign carriers, as evidenced by the Germanwings tragedy that occurred when co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked the pilot out of the flight deck and then crashed the airplane into the French Alps, killing all 150 people on board.

As Dallas Morning News blogger Tod Robberson writes: “Ever since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has led the world in measures to tighten airline security measures — often to the point that we’ve been ridiculed by the rest of the world for overregulating. U.S. regulations established the annoying procedures that require passengers to partially disrobe before they can enter airline gate areas. U.S. regulations banned the use of sharp metal objects like knives used for airline meals. U.S. regulations required the redesign and reinforcement of cockpit doors to prevent anyone from breaking in and taking over the plane and flying it into skyscrapers.”

Robberson’s blog post attached to this item is worth your time.

More regulations? Sure. Do they annoy us? Yes. Are they necessary to help prevent tragedies such as the Germanwings disaster? Absolutely.

 

legal news, national news

Tsarnaev likely to go down

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is now a convicted murderer.

A Boston jury convicted him of all counts of first-degree murder in the April 15, 2013 bombing at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

The U.S. Justice Department will seek the death penalty once the sentencing phase of the trial begins next week.

Based on what I understand occurred in the courtroom during the trial, the young killer is likely to be put down.

He didn’t show remorse. He didn’t exhibit any emotion. He didn’t even flinch, blink or look away when prosecutors produced graphic autopsy photographs of the three people killed in the blast; meanwhile, the jurors wept as they looked at the pictures.

What does that say about Tsarnaev? To me, it says he carried out a premeditated attack against innocent victims to prove some political point. The last person to be executed by the federal government, Timothy McVeigh, did the same thing when he detonated the truck bomb in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City nearly 20 years ago this month.

I’ve noted already my opposition to capital punishment. Tsarnaev’s cold response is testing that opposition to the max.

Although I oppose this punishment on principle, I won’t grieve if the jury sends this young man to his death.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience