War on terror is not 'over'

Politicians hate taking back things they say. They aren’t disposed — given the nature of the work they do — to admit when they’re wrong, at least not openly.

President Obama has declared in recent years that “The war on terror is over.”

I cannot read his mind, but my throbbing bunion and my trick knee are telling me the same thing: He well might wish he could take it back.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/09/Krauthammer/

He pronounced the end of the war on terror as the United States was pulling its troops out of Iraq. Our ground war there had concluded. All that was left was to fight the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other splinter terror groups in Afghanistan.

The terrorists have taken a terrible beating at the hands of the greatest military apparatus in world history. They keep coming back. Their resilience is astonishing.

Al-Qaeda is now taking credit for the Paris shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. France is on high alert. French intelligence operatives are looking for a fourth terrorist who reportedly might have fled to Syria; three other terrorists were killed.

The columnist Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training who isn’t known as a counterterrorism “expert,” says we’re entering the “third stage of the jihad.” His link is attached to this blog post. I don’t quite understand how he knows what stage this we’re, or how the terrorists measure these things. He’s a smart fellow, though, so perhaps he knows something many of the rest of us don’t know.

I do know, this, though: The president spoke far too prematurely in declaring the “war on terror is over.”

Indeed, some of us have noted since the dark days immediately after 9/11 that the war against international terror may never end. I questioned at the time of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan how we could declare victory, other than by simply declaring it and going home. The late U.S. Sen. George Aiken, R-Vt., once proposed such a thing — only partly in jest — when he suggested we declare victory in Vietnam and then just leave.

That well might be what President Obama has done. He declared a victory that he couldn’t define.

The Paris attack and all the attacks that have come in the years since 9/11 persuade me, at least, that the war on terror will be ongoing well past the foreseeable future.

I am not expecting an admission of error from the president of the United States. I believe, though, that we ought to stop talking like victors while continuing to act like combatants.

This war isn’t over.

 

'This is not a war against Islam'

George W. Bush said it with crystal clarity.

Barack Obama has repeated it with equal amounts of force and conviction.

The United States of America, both presidents have stated, is not waging a war against Islam. The enemy, they have proclaimed repeatedly, is the radical fringe of a great religion that has perverted its holy word and misinterpreted it for its own evil intentions.

Sadly and tragically, the other side — the enemy — doesn’t see it that way. The enemy has declared a religious war against the West. Should our side follow that lead? Absolutely, categorically not.

The attack in Paris has produced some chilling aftershocks. The massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices — where gunmen attacked staffers at the satirical magazine for publishing unflattering images of Mohammed — has led to real fear that more terror cells have been activated in Europe.

More mayhem is on its way.

But the United States and our allies must stand firm in the belief that their war isn’t against Islam.

The 9/11 attacks against the United States were not carried out by mainstream Muslims. They occurred because a monstrous terror cell decided to kill innocent victims, which is prohibited explicitly in the Quran. The leader of that cell, Osama bin Laden, had done this deed before. U.S. and allied intelligence officials knew of this individual’s evil ways, sought to kill him before 9/11, failed, leaving those victims vulnerable to paying a terrible price on that bright morning more than 13 years ago.

Did the president at the time declare all Muslims to be evil? No. President Bush laid down the marker clearly and succinctly: We are going to take the fight to the evil elements that brought to us.

The president left office in January 2009, handing the war plans over to a new commander in chief, Barack Obama. President Obama has said it time and again: This war must be fought against vicious rogue elements.

U.S. commandos finally brought justice to bin Laden in the middle of a moonless night in May 2011, killing him on sight and then burying him at sea.

Did we kill an Islamic cleric? Did this man command a religious following? He was a monster.

And other monsters must remain in our sights as we pursue this global war on terror.

The Paris attack will prompt more violence from more monsters. Yes, they belong ostensibly to the religion of Islam and they technically are “Muslim terrorists.” But the war we fight is not against the peaceful mainstream.

As for the enemy, let the other side declare a religious war. We must remain focused on the real enemy.

The terrorists.

 

 

Free college for anyone who wants it?

Is it me or is President Obama in a fight-picking mood these days?

Now it’s free community college for any high school graduate who carries a 2.5 grade point average or better. The president this week proposed a new plan to enroll more students in community college. He made the pitch in Tennessee, which has a statewide program after which the president modeled the federal idea.

What’s more, he made his pitch in the presence of Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, who once served as education secretary during the George H.W. Bush administration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/barack-obama-free-community-college-114094.html?hp=rc3_4

Will this plan fly in Congress? Well, it’s worth a serious look. But I am dubious about Republicans’ ability or willingness to make an “investment” in public education while it has its dander up at the president over immigration policy, health care and, oh, just about anything.

Amarillo College President Russell Lowery-Hart seems willing to give it a look, if not yet ready to give it a try. He told NewsChannel 10: “I think it’s something our community needs. When you look at last year, for every $1 of taxpayer money invested in Amarillo College, there was a $3.50 return on investment. I think the proposal today acknowledges the economic impact community colleges have on communities and we would certainly want to be a part of that conversation.”

The sticking point is going to be its cost and where the federal government will get the money.

Republicans aren’t in an investing mood these days. Job-training bills have gone nowhere. Infrastructure restoration? Forget about it.

Free college for millions of high school graduates? Well, the president of Amarillo College — which sits in the heart of Anti-Obama Territory — seems willing at least to discuss the notion.

So, let’s start talking.

 

Gov. Christie plays with fire by hugging Jerry

You’ve got to love the political back story developing with the newly revealed “bromance” between New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Dallas Cowboys owner/general manager/media hound Jerry Jones.

Christie and Jones are longtime pals. Jones invited Christie to attend the Jerry World Taj Mahal-like stadium in Arlington, where the Cowboys play football. The two of them sat in Jones’s luxury suite and cheered for the Cowboys, who defeated the Detroit Lions in the first round of the NFL playoffs.

The nation saw Jones and Christie hugging in jubilation.

Big deal? Well, yeah, sort of.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/07/christie-faces-problems-in-new-jersey-while-considering-2016-presidential-run/

Jones paid for Christie’s plane ticket to Texas, which might violate New Jersey political ethics laws prohibiting elected officials from accepting such gifts.

Then there’s the booing Christie is getting from fans of the New York Jets and Giants, who play their home games in Rutherford, N.J. That’s not a big deal, given that neither the Jets or the Giants are in the playoffs.

But it gets a little trickier.

Christie might run for president in 2016. His friendship with Jones isn’t going to matter much in Texas, which already is a heavily Republican state. Christie’s GOP credentials aren’t going to be questioned here if he decides to run for his party’s nomination.

The Cowboys, though, do have fierce rivalries with the Giants and now, after the controversial game with Detroit, with the Lions — who got considerable help this past week from a couple of blown calls on the field by the officiating crew. New York and New Jersey lean Democratic in presidential elections; Michigan, meanwhile, could be considered a “swing” state in the next election.

Politics. It’s everywhere. A guy just can’t go to a football game on his pal’s dime? Not in this day and age if you’re considering a run for the presidency.

Free expression under assault

The attack this week on a French satirical magazine that killed 12 people was launched against a guiding principle of liberty.

The target was freedom of expression.

There cannot be any buckling to the forces of terror, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson.

He is so very correct. Here is Robinson’s column in full:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/09/journalists_must_stand_firm_125200.html

Charlie Hebdo is known for its biting — and sometimes crude — satire. It published some cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a less-than-flattering light. Some French Muslims took exception and opened fire at Charlie Hebdo’s Paris office. The bloodshed ended Friday with the deaths of three assassins; four hostages also died in a French commando assault outside of Paris, but other hostages were freed.

Publications around the world are going to look at how they should react to this horrifying act of revenge. Free expression is a cherished right of those who enjoy liberty. Let it stand forever.

Robinson notes in his column: “Right now, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the tendency must be to err on the side of defiance. News organizations have an obligation to demonstrate that they will not be cowed — and indeed, many are doing just that. But what happens a month from now, or a year from now?”

And then he adds: “If freedom of speech is to mean anything, we must avoid self-censorship. And if we are to avoid self-censorship, we must be able to protect and defend the right to make editorial decisions on their merits — which means being prepared to protect the journalists who make those decisions. This means that media organizations and governments must provide adequate security measures so that journalists can do their work.”

I’m with him.

 

 

Can the state can cut taxes too deeply? Yes

Oil revenue is falling in Texas. The state depends on it to pay for state government.

Yet the bean counters in the Comptroller’s Office are being told by lawmakers — namely Lt. Gov.-elect Dan Patrick — that the state is not going to ease up on providing tax relief for Texans.

https://wordpress.com/read/post/feed/12395410/595905125/

Comptroller-elect Glenn Hegar’s task is to provide the Legislature with an estimate of how much money the state will have to spend the next two years.

But those darn oil prices make these projections so very tricky.

Should the state keep cutting taxes when its revenue stream has been put in jeopardy by forces beyond its control? I don’t think that’s wise government policy.

That doesn’t deter Patrick and his tax-cutting allies in the Legislature. Patrick told panelists at a Texas Public Policy Forum gathering: “We expect to be bold and we expect to be big in tax cuts and then I’m going to trust my good friend here the comptroller.”

The state Legislature, populated by a super-Republican majority led by a TEA party faction that just cannot cut taxes enough — even if it puts important government services in jeopardy — ought to resist the temptation to keep slashing revenue just for the sake of slashing revenue.

I doubt seriously, though, anyone in Austin will follow that course. It’s politically popular in Texas to cut, cut and cut some more.

Good luck, Mr. Comptroller, as you prepare to deliver the bad news to our elected representatives.

What to call college football's big game?

I might be breaking some new ground here, but a thought occurs to me regarding the Big Game set for Monday night to determine the best college football team in the country.

The game doesn’t have a catchy name. You know, like the Super Bowl?

My Oregon Ducks are going to play the Ohio State Buckeyes in the first-ever college football playoff championship game. It needs something catchy.

Let’s flash back for a moment to the first Super Bowl, played in 1967. It wasn’t even called the Super Bowl. It carried the clunky name of “AFL-NFL Championship Game.” The American Football League champs that year were the Kansas City Chiefs; representing the National Football League were the Green Bay Packers.

The Pack won 35-10 at the Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles, which was about two-thirds full for the biggest game in pro football history.

The AFL and the NFL played three more interleague championship games before the leagues merged in 1970. But someone came up with the name “Super Bowl” in time for the 1968 game between the Packers and the Oakland Raiders.

I’m open for suggestions on what to call the college football equivalent of the Super Bowl.

Heck, college basketball has its March Madness and its Final Four; Major League Baseball has its World Series; college baseball has its College World Series; hockey fans know the title series of their sport simply as the Stanley Cup.

The NCAA has come up with a marketing winner with this college football playoff. It figures to smash TV-viewing records Monday night.

So … let’s give college football’s big game a name to make it — and us — all proud.

Oh, before I forget: Go Ducks!

 

Mitt wants to be president

Oh, man, I am happy to hear the news that Mitt Romney wants to be president of the United States.

Please, though, do not misunderstand. It’s not necessarily that I want him to be president. It’s that he wants it bad enough to consider running for the office for the third time in four election cycles.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mitt-romney-considering-another-presidential-run-2016

Mitt told some donors at a private meeting of his desire to live in the White House. “People ask if I really want to be president,” Romney said, according to a source. “Yeah, I want to be president.”

So what if he says he’s just considering a third run for the White House. He hasn’t decided whether to seek the 2016 Republican nomination. He hasn’t launched an exploratory committee or anything of the sort.

At least not yet.

I thought his 2012 campaign was a hoot to watch. He made so many mistakes along the way. It turned out that on election night, when he conceded to President Obama, that I began to feel some sympathy for him.

It’s not that he’s going to go hungry. Lord knows he’s got enough money.

Mitt, though, just needs to make one more run for it. He needs to redeem himself and run the kind of campaign that is relatively free of the goofs and gaffes that forced some stumbles two years ago.

Remember the 10 grand bet he offered for Texas Gov. Rick Perry at one of those umpteen GOP debates? Good grief! Who’s got that kind of money to throw around?

How about the time he told that heckler in Iowa that “corporations are people, too, my friend”?

And who can forget the infamous “47 percent” comment to big donors that someone recorded?

Mitt’s got to get back in the game.

 

Recovery bigger than presidency or Congress

Barack Obama gets a lot of blame and takes a lot of credit.

The president deserves some of the blame and much of the credit.

He doesn’t deserve all of what he gets or what he takes.

Politico has published a fascinating analysis of the economic recovery that is under way and wonders whether the president is taking too much credit for it. Its answer is “yes.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/does-obama-deserve-credit-for-economy-114107.html?hp=t1_r

I’ve been generous in my praise of Barack Obama’s handling of the financial meltdown that was occurring when he took office. He was bold and brash when he launched efforts to stimulate the economy with cash and when he persuaded Congress to enact bailout legislation that helped the automobile and banking industries.

Those efforts have paid off. Indeed, the auto industry has paid back the money it got and the Treasury is fatter because of it.

The latest job-creation numbers continue to show improvement in the economy, but as Politico points out, an $18 trillion economic machine — which is what the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is — is too big for a mere president or Congress to control.

As Politico reports: “Republicans say the economy is finally – and only partially – shaking off the impact of Obama policies like the Affordable Care Act, tax hikes and financial reform, all of which they contend slowed down growth. And they point to paltry wage gains once again evident in the December jobs report. Democrats say that’s sour grapes from partisans whose warnings of a disastrous ‘Obama economy’ look increasingly ridiculous.”

Furthermore, writes Politico: “Economists – on the left and right and in the middle – say the facts suggest a vastly more complex middle ground. Obama deserves significant credit for some shrewd and politically difficult moves early on his presidency, economists say, including the stimulus and the automobile and Wall Street bailouts.”

Congressional Republicans are now trying wrestle some of the economic recovery credit away from the president. Some have joked that the GOP has taken control of the full Congress only since Monday, noting that Democrats have run the Senate while the House has been in GOP hands only since 2011.

I’ve also noted that credit for the recovery can be shared, just as blame can be found on both sides for the collapse that occurred in the final years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/01/01/how-about-sharing-the-credit/

The bottom line is that the economy is too huge, too complicated and contains too many traps for a single set of policies to manipulate.

 

CNN anchor crosses another line

What in the world is up with Don Lemon?

The Columbia Journalism Review rated Lemon as one of this past year’s worst journalists. Now the CNN anchor has cemented that crummy rating with a seriously bone-headed question posed to an American Muslim.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/01/08/do-you-support-isis-watch-cnns-don-lemon-ask-a/202056

The link is attached. Take a look.

I watched the interview in which Lemon asked Arsalan Iftikhar, a human rights attorney, if he supported ISIS, aka the Islamic State or ISIL, the monstrous Islamic cult that has beheaded captives.

What’s remarkable about the question was Iftikhar’s response, which was that he seemed unsure whether Lemon actually posed that question. He then answered it calmly and rationally.

Lemon has made a bit of an infamous name for himself lately by suggesting that Malaysian Air 370 might have been swallowed by a black hole and then suggesting to a sexual abuse victim that there are graphic methods to avoid being forced to perform oral sex on a man.

The discussion about radical Islam needs to remain focused on what I believe is the core issue: Do the terrorists’ actions represent Islam or are they the acts of religious perverts?

To ask an an intelligent, reasonable, scholarly man who happens to be Muslim whether supports the actions of ISIL becomes an immediate distraction. It focuses attention on a dimwitted question.