International news

GOP fires back at torture report

To no one’s surprise, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans have their own version of whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” made America safer in the wake of 9/11.

They say the tactics saved lives and protected the country against further harm.

The GOP senators say the tactics were necessary to gather intelligence that led eventually to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-senators-defend-cia-alternate-report-113434.html

Intelligence panel Democrats are standing by their assertion — correctly, in my view — that American intelligence officials and military leaders could have obtained all of that information and protected Americans without subjecting terror suspects to torture.

So there it is: yet another political schism has erupted on Capitol Hill.

As Politico reports: “The GOP report decried the (Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne) Feinstein study, arguing that it contained ‘faulty analysis, serious inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact’ to create a series of false conclusions about the counterterrorism program’s effectiveness and the CIA’s interactions with Congress and the White House.”

So, the other side has responded with what it contends is accurate analysis and objective examination of the facts. Is that what they’re saying?

I’ve noted already that this discussion is going to turn into a liar’s contest over time. One side is going to accuse the other of deceit. It’ll go back and forth.

I’ll just stick to my assertion that “enhanced interrogation” can — and should — include tactics that do not include the physical torturing of enemy captives. I’d even allow for sleep deprivation that would include round-the-clock badgering of detainees as a way to make ’em squeal.

Still, the debate rages on.

Uncategorized

Nothing wrong with 'Happy Holidays'

This comes from a friend of mine in a Facebook post.

“Let’s get this straight right now. If you wish me Happy Holidays I’m going to tell you ‘thanks.’ I may even wish you Merry Christmas in return. I am certainly not going to get ticked off because someone might say happy holidays, the holidays are happy. So, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!”

There you have it.

I join my friend in refusing to take offense if someone wishes me a generic “Happy Holidays” greeting.

That someone likely is a stranger. He or she might be someone I see at the grocery store. We might meet at the gasoline pump as we fill our vehicles with fuel. I might see this person at my part-time job.

During this holiday season, it’s good to remember that next week is the start of Hanukkah, one of holiest of Jewish holidays, begins. What in the world is so terribly wrong with wishing a Jew a “happy holiday” season, even though you might not even know the person’s creed when you make that particular wish?

A Muslim woman walked into the auto dealership where I work part time. Were I to wish her a holiday greeting, I surely wouldn’t wish her a Merry Christmas. She might have offered a Christmas greeting to me, which would have suited me just fine.

My friend’s Facebook post puts all this holiday/Christmas nonsense in its proper perspective.

2014 is coming to an end. The next year will produce its own set of challenges.

Let’s not sweat the small stuff and enjoy this time of the year.

 

political news

Palin actually makes sense … more or less

Hell froze over this evening.

It happened the moment I read an online account of an interview that former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did in which she proclaimed her desire to see a woman “on both sides of the aisle” campaign for the presidency in 2016.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/sarah-palin-2016_n_6297570.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Why did hell freeze over? I actually agree with Palin.

Then she talked some more about the next presidential race and said she gets asked whether she intends to run for the White House in two years.

Would the ex-governor be the Republican who runs, probably against Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Perish the thought. No, blow that thought to smithereens, never to be mentioned or even thought of ever again!

Sarah Barracuda must not run for president. Then again, were she to run, she might be exposed for the intellectual fraud that she’s always been. But the Republican Party is full of serious politicians who are committed to fulfilling their public responsibilities — unlike Palin, who quit halfway through her only term as Alaska governor. Reality TV and Fox News beckoned with big bucks. Moreover, New Mexico has a competent governor in Susana Martinez; Oklahoma is governed by Mary Fallin; newly elected U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa might turn out to be a pleasant surprise.

Palin for president? Good grief, no. A billion times no!

However, I concur with her desire to see women in both major parties suited up for a run for the presidency. It well might be time to cross that important political threshold.

 

International news, national news

You mean the CIA might have fibbed?

The Senate report is out: The CIA reportedly lied to President Bush about how it was using “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists.

And to no one’s surprise — certainly not mine — former CIA director Michael Hayden has fired back. He’s defending his agency’s handling of the interrogation techniques.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/cia-torture-report-113420.html?hp=c1_3

My tendency is to believe the Senate, that the CIA was less than truthful. After all, the CIA is a spy agency and its agents are, shall we say, trained to mislead.

The threshold question that will need to answered and then examined for its veracity is whether these techniques — which some call “torture” — produced actionable intelligence that helped the good guys fight the bad guys.

It’s becoming something of a liar’s contest. The CIA and the Bush administration say they did; others say the techniques didn’t provide any information that more normal techniques could have obtained.

The key element is whether torturing the al-Qaeda suspects helped our spooks find Osama bin Laden and whether that information led to the May 2011 SEAL team raid that killed the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The debate has been joined.

Meanwhile, U.S. embassies around the world have been put on heightened alert in case terrorists become so angry at the report that they strike at Americans abroad.

I am one American who does not want to see our forces torture captive combatants. We keep saying we’re above that kind of thing, that we don’t want to reduce our standards to the level of the terrorists we are trying to destroy.

I’m fine with that.

Our intelligence agencies are packed with well-trained professional interrogators who are fully capable of obtaining information through serious questioning and, yes, perhaps some threatening techniques. To inflict actual pain and suffering on those suspects, though, is no better than what they do to captives under their control.

Exceptional nations are able to employ exceptional tactics — even in wartime.

 

political news, State news

Beck's barbs won't unseat Straus

How cool is this? Glenn Beck, the radio gasbag, has weighed in with a commentary on whether Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, should be re-elected speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.

He calls Straus a “RINO, a Republican in Name Only.” He said Rep. Scott Turner, R-Frisco, should be the next House speaker because, according to the Beckster, he’s the real deal.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/08/turner-and-beck-throws-barbs-straus/

I believe young Glenn ought to go back to pontificating about matters of which he is an expert, such as whether Earth’s climate is changing or whether the president of the United States “hates white people.”

Joe Straus is a mainstream Republican who, I reckon, doesn’t quite conform with how some people think Texas Republicans ought to act or say.

One doesn’t hear him vowing to sue Barack Obama for doing what the Constitution allows him to do. One does not hear Straus say that the Affordable Care Act is the worst thing to happen to this country since the Civil War.

No. All the speaker has done to incur the wrath of TEA party conservatives and loquacious radio talk-show hosts is worth with Democrats and seek to craft legislation that benefits the state. Why, they just can’t stand that kind of thing.

Turner won’t unseat Straus, who’s reportedly gathered enough pledges of support to guarantee his re-election as speaker.

Once the speaker retains the gavel, perhaps Turner will return to the back bench of the House chamber and represent his Metroplex constituents to the best of his ability.

As for Beck, stick to tossing out half-truths and outright lies about Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

 

business news

Wealth measurement changes with times

Warren Buffett is now the world’s second-richest man.

The title used to belong to Carlos Slim. Both of these guys trail Bill Gates by a good bit. Several billions of dollars, I think.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/buffett-unseats-mexicos-slim-as-worlds-second-richest-person/ar-BBgpiKD

I see these surveys measuring people’s wealth. Gates is worth tens of billions. Same with Buffett and Slim — and whoever else comprises the Top 10 list of richest people on the planet.

Inflation has done a lot of things to the way we measure these matters.

It all reminds me of how much the actual dollar has been devalued over the past, oh, 40 years.

Aristotle Onassis died in 1975. He was a shipping tycoon with merchants ships carrying cargo all around the world. At the time of his death, he was considered one of the world’s top two richest men. I seem to recall it was a see-saw contest between him and a rival Greek shipping magnate, a guy named Stavros Niarcos.

What was Onassis’s wealth at the time of his death? The figure I saw was $500 million.

Good heavens. He was a mere multimillionaire. Onassis’s portfolio amounted to mere chump change when compared to Gates, Buffett and Slim.

national news

Garner case is not about taxation

Conservative talking heads keep trying to change the subject while discussing the case involving Eric Garner, the black man choked to death in New York by a white police officer.

It’s reprehensible for them to try to turn the argument to something as ridiculous as taxation.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/12/08/hannity-to-tavis-smiley-about-the-role-of-race/201804

The video link attached here is difficult to watch. It features Fox News commentator Sean Hannity arguing with PBS commentator Tavis Smiley over the grand jury’s decision not to indict the New York police officer who choked Garner to death. It’s difficult because the two of them keep arguing over each other, each trying to outshout the other. Perhaps the funniest part is when Hannity (a white guy) tells Smiley (a black guy) that he needs “to be educated” about how African-Americans should react to the Garner case and the one involving Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

But in the midst of the verbal melee, Hannity — quite predictably — tries to suggest the real villain here is a government that insists on taxing cigarettes in an effort to get as much money as it can.

What the … ?

Garner had been approached by the police for selling “loose cigarettes.” He was selling them individually, I guess to make a few bucks on the side. I presume that’s an illegal act, which is why the cops were hassling Garner in the first place.

Well, he argued back, telling the police he wasn’t doing anything wrong. One of them grabbed Garner in a chokehold, wrestled him to the ground, ignoring Garner’s “I can’t breathe” pleas.

Garner passed out and then died.

And Hannity — along with other right-wingers — wants to say the real villain is a tax policy that prohibits people from selling cigarettes in the manner that Eric Garner sought to sell them?

I cannot believe the crassness of such an argument.

 

International news

U.S. must not rely on torture

An upcoming release of a CIA report on whether American officials tortured al-Qaeda suspects to gain “actionable intelligence” to use in the war on terror is bound to reignite a long-standing debate.

Are we better than that? Does the United States of America need to rely on barbaric procedures to gain the upper hand against the enemy?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-dick-cheney-110306.html?ml=po#.VIbXKVJ0yt9

My own mind is made up on that matter.

I do not believe the United State should torture enemy captives.

We’ll hear from those who say, “Big deal. They do it to us. An eye for an eye. Give them a taste of what they deliver to our own captives.” I can hear it from some of my very own friends on the subject and they’ll respond that way when they read these words.

I’ll stand by my assertion that this country is supposed to stand for grander ideals than the enemy we are fighting. We proclaim it all the time, don’t we?

Whether the tactics employed right after the 9/11 attacks — as lined out in the report — produced the kind of information that enabled us to find and kill Osama bin Laden also will be open to debate. Some say it did. Other say it didn’t.

Then we’ll hear the debate over how to define “torture.” Does the term “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually become a euphemism for the “t” word?

It’ll be a complicated debate. For the sake of our country’s stated belief in a higher ideal, though, I do hope we can declare once again, with emphasis, that torture is wrong and will not be tolerated.

 

International news

Syria, Iran criticize Israel? Well, duh

Who knew? Syria and Iran have criticized Israel for reportedly launching an air strike near Damascus.

The Israelis aren’t confirming the strike, but some reports indicate the Israelis were striking Hezbollah targets in the strife-ravaged country.

And to think such an attack would anger the Syrians … and the Iranians.

http://news.yahoo.com/syria-iran-accuse-israel-air-strike-arms-hezbollah-141644919.html

Why, the nerve of those Israelis. I’m tellin’ ya.

Do the Israelis have some “skin” in the Syrian conflict? Yes they do. Hezbollah has been a key player in that struggle. Hezbollah also is up to its eyeballs in running government affairs in Lebanon, which borders Israel on the north — and which also is committed, along with Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran, of eradicating Israel.

This is precisely the kind of threat the Israelis face every single day. All day. Year round. For centuries.

Does anyone expect the Israelis to stand still while a notorious terrorist organization plots their destruction? How foolish can one be to think such a thing?

Israel is facing some internal political strife of its own. Elections will take place soon to elect a new Knesset and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure might be coming to an end.

Are the air strikes a “distraction?” I have no clue.

I do know that Israel spares no effort — nor should it — in protecting itself from enemies who are breathing down its neck.

 

State news

Abbott staying neutral in '16 GOP primary

Nice try, Chuck Todd.

The moderator of “Meet the Press” tried to lure Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott into endorsing someone for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Abbott didn’t take the bait, saying he is “staying out of” the primary activity. Translation: I ain’t endorsing anyone, but I’ll support whoever the party nominates.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/12/abbott-staying-out-of-2016-gop-presidential-primary/

But then the thought occurred to me: The ’16 presidential field well could be chock full of current and former Texas politicians, and perhaps the son of a former Texas politician.

Look at the Lone Star lineup.

* Lame-duck Texas Gov. Rick Perry is making all kinds of racket about running once again for his party’s presidential nomination.

* Freshman U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz also is acting like a candidate in the making, delivering speeches to fundraising giants and making a nuisance of himself by showing up in front of TV cameras at any opportunity.

* Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who grew up in Texas, is a possible — some say “probable” — candidate.

* U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is the son of a former Texas member of Congress, Ron Paul, who has run unsuccessfully already for his party’s nomination.

Am I missing anyone?

Count ’em. That’s four leading politicians with Texas ties looking (possibly?) to run for president of the United States.

Yes, the GOP is mighty strong in Texas.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience