Blair apologizes for Iraq War … more or less

<> on April 7, 2015 in Sedgefield, England.

Tony Blair had me going there for a little while.

I thought the former British prime minister actually was going to say he was sorry for joining the parade into war with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Then he backed away.

Blair tempered his apology by saying it was not a mistake to get rid of Saddam, but then said he regrets following the faulty intelligence that persuaded his country and the United States that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

You know how it turned out. We invaded Iraq, tossed Saddam out, captured him, tried him, hanged him … all the while scouring Iraq for those WMD.

They weren’t there.

Am I glad Saddam Hussein is gone? Of course I am! The price we paid in thousands of American lives lost, however, was too great.

Blair’s almost-apology, though, does go a lot farther than President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ever have done — or likely ever will do.

If only the U.S. brass would acknowledge the mistake. If only it acknowledge the war’s impact on the enabling of the Islamic State, the Sunni militant group that is waging war against the Shia government in Iraq.

That won’t happen. Instead, we hear from Cheney (mostly) about how they were right and how others, namely the Obama administration, have squandered all the progress we made in Iraq.

Well, the Iraq War was a war of choice.

Saddam Hussein was being contained within Iraq. He posed barely a fraction of the threat that he was said to pose.

And, oh yes. Let’s not forget that Saddam Hussein and his Baath party had nothing — zero — to do with the 9/11 attacks, which was another pretext that the Bush administration used to justify our invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

I don’t expect an apology from the Bush administration. I was hoping one might be forthcoming from our allies across The Pond.

It came. Sort of …

 

Will local election serve as bellwether?

Old fashionet American Constitution with USA  Flag.

This won’t take long.

The upcoming Amarillo election on the multipurpose event venue well could determine whether the wackiness that’s driving the national political debate has found its way to the Caprock.

The pro-MPEV forces in Amarillo are well-funded and well-organized.

The anti-MPEV forces are neither of the two.

The pro-MPEV side is seen as the “establishment.”

The anti-MPEV folks are seen as “anti-establishment.”

Nationally, the anti-establishment side is winning the argument, particularly as it relates to who should become the Republicans’ presidential nominee.

Locally, well … the jury is still out.

I’m pulling for the establishment — in both instances.

Memo to Marco: Quit your day job

Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., presides over Senate Foreign Relations Committee, subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, And Global Women's Issues hearing on overview of U.S. policy towards Haiti prior to the elections, Wednesday, July 15, 2015, on Capitol Hill in Washington.   (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Marco Rubio doesn’t like his day job.

Too bad. He ought to quit and concentrate on the other job he is seeking.

He’s a United States senator from Florida seeking to become president of the United States.

Rubio told the Washington Post that the Senate frustrates him. His friends and close associates say he “hates” the Senate. It’s too slow. Too bound by procedure. Too this and too that. Rubio is a young man on the move and he wants a job that will enable him to get things done in a hurry.

Rubio wants out of a job that pays him a pretty handsome salary, about 175 grand annually. But now that he’s seeking the presidency, he’s been off the Senate grid for most of the year.

His Senate absenteeism has drawn fire from the home folks. According to the Post: “On the campaign trail, Rubio comes under attack from rivals who say he’s become an absentee federal employee. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, in a less-than-subtle knock on his former homestate ally, has said senators who miss work should have their pay docked.

“’It’s just, kind of, like, dude, you know, either drop out or do something,’ Bush’s son, Jeb Bush Jr., told New York University College Republicans earlier this month, in comments first reported by Politico Florida. The junior Bush, a Floridian, cast himself as an aggrieved constituent. ‘We’re paying you to do something, it ain’t run for president.’”

I don’t begrudge the Republican senator for wanting to seek higher office. I’ve noted already that other senators have done the same thing.

But the way I see it, if Rubio dislikes the job he has so much that he’s willing to admit it publicly, then perhaps it’s time for him to quit that job., let the governor of his state appoint a suitable successor — who’ll do the job and actually earn that six-figure salary — and then devote all his waking-hours energy to seeking that White House gig.

Rubio already has declared he won’t seek re-election to the Senate next year. He’s decided one term is enough.

Here, though, is a bit of history that Rubio should consider.

In the event he gets elected president next year, he’s likely to find that the presidency is hamstrung as well by certain processes. An anecdotal story has been bandied about Washington for the past 50-plus year about how another young, go-go senator got elected president and became frustrated that he couldn’t snap his fingers to get things done instantaneously.

President John F. Kennedy learned that his new job tied his hands on occasion and that he had to learn to work through the process. Then again, he hated the Senate, too.

Give up your day job, Marco.

Now it’s Dr. Carson’s faith drawing Trump barbs

donald

You might have heard Donald Trump score another one for the tasteless, tactless and thoughtless.

Will this latest insult doom his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination? I doubt it.

The object of Trump’s latest bit of scorn happened to be Dr. Ben Carson … specifically his faith.

Trump was rambling over the weekend about his being a Presbyterian. Then he launched into a brief riff wondering about Carson’s Seventh-day Adventist faith.

It was as if Trump didn’t think much of Carson’s belief.

Let’s see, Trump has gone after:

John McCain’s war record; Carly Fiorina’s appearance; broadcast journalist Megyn Kelly’s line of questioning; Jeb Bush’s “lack of energy”; the media in general; talk-show host Hugh Hewitt’s so-called “gotcha” journalism; Hispanic immigrants.

Anyone else? Oh, probably. I just can’t think of them.

Will any of it doom him. One would think. But wait! This isn’t a normal election year.

Goofiness is what many of the GOP faithful seem to want.

Heaven help them … and the rest of us.

 

These charges seem so very appropriate

crash

A woman plowed her car into a Stillwater, Okla., crowd over the weekend.

Four people are dead, including a 2-year-old toddler.

The woman reportedly was drunk at the wheel, although the suspect’s lawyer contends there “absolutely” was no alcohol involved. We’ll have to wait for the tests to come back on that one, counselor.

She is now facing at least four counts of second-degree murder over the carnage she created at an Oklahoma State University homecoming parade.

My initial reaction to the charges being filed? Good!

The rage is palpable in Stillwater toward Adacia Chambers, a 25-year-old resident of the city.

These kinds of tragedies hit us all quite hard. The very idea that a crowd of people enjoying a day of celebration for a college football team could be victimized in this manner by someone who might have been impaired by drugs and/or alcohol simply boggles the mind.

It’s not a “mere” drunk- or reckless-driving case here. If Chambers gets convicted of the murder charges, she’s going away for a very long time. What’s more, several of the people who were injured are in critical condition; if any of them loses the fight for survival, the counts against Chambers could add up to even more prison time in the event of a conviction.

One of the witnesses to the mayhem said, “I’ve lived here my whole life and this blows my mind. This is something that doesn’t happen in Stillwater.”

Tragically, yes it does.

 

Big storm makes me think: climate change

climate-change

Hurricane Patricia roared ashore on the Pacific Coast of Mexico.

It brought immense wind and an enormous amount of rain. The rain has swept across much of Texas, flooding areas of the southern and eastern parts of the state.

One of my thoughts as I looked from afar at this unfolding misery? Climate change.

I do not know if this storm by itself is a result of the changing climate across Planet Earth. I am quite certain, though, that its ferocity is going to spark more discussion — and yes, even angry debate — about whether the planet’s climate is changing and whether humankind has played a major role in that event.

We’ll let the debate commence.

I just want to weigh in, though, with this thought.

The climate change deniers in public office and even those out here among us unwashed masses keep seeking to debunk the theories put forth by those who believe the planet is warming up and that human activity has played a role.  Their argument? Those who believe such things “aren’t scientists,” they say. They ridicule esteemed individuals, such as Pope Francis, in that category.

Actually, the Holy Father is a scientist, with a background in chemistry. Aww, that’s not a relevant area of expertise, the deniers keep saying. Well, OK. But the pope and others have based their arguments with findings and data compiled by actual scientists who have concluded that human activity is related directly to the changing climate on our planet.

My best response to all of that, though, is that the deniers to whom I refer aren’t scientists, either. Yes, they too present data from scientists who agree with their view that human beings’ abuse of Earth hasn’t contributed to the changing climate.

So, which non-expert do you choose to believe?

I tend to side with those who fear that Earth’s climate is changing and that we human beings have played a significant role in bringing it about.

 

Vote numbers are piling up … good!

EARLY+VOTING_MGN

I’ve blathered, bloviated and brow-beaten folks for years about the value of participating in this form of government of ours.

You know how it goes. If you don’t vote, then you can’t gripe. You can’t take ownership of the decisions that your elected representatives make on your behalf. You cede all of that responsibility to the guy next door … or to the idiot down the street or across town who disagrees with everything you hold dear about public policy.

The early vote on the upcoming Amarillo referendum on the multipurpose event venue continues to roll up some encouraging numbers, no matter how one feels about the $32 million MPEV that’s been proposed for the city’s downtown district.

According to the Amarillo Globe-News, which is doing a pretty good job of tracking the early-vote totals, 6,655 voters had cast ballots as of Friday. The raw number all by itself doesn’t say much … at least not yet.

After all, the city has about 100,000 individuals who are registered to vote. So, as of this week, we’ve seen fewer than 10 percent of the registered voters actually casting ballots.

Early voting continues through this coming Friday.

Then on Nov. 3, the polls open across the city and the rest of us — that would include me — get to vote.

I have no way of knowing what the final early vote total will be.

But based on comparative figures with other key municipal elections, this campaign has generated considerable interest on both sides of the political divide.

The early-vote totals so far are about 2,000 greater than those who voted early in the May municipal election that seated three new members to the Amarillo City Council; the MPEV early-vote number is about 1,000 fewer than the totals to date for the November 2014 general election; this year’s early voting is more than 3,000 votes greater than the early-vote totals year over year for the November 2013 constitutional amendment election.

This is all a very good thing for the future of participatory democracy.

Yes, I wish we could get every registered voter to actually cast a ballot. Better yet, I wish we could get every person who is eligible to vote to actually register and then go out and vote. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

I’ll keep wishing for such an event, even though I know I’ll likely never see it.

Until then, I plan to keep hoping that Amarillo can turn the tide against the dismal participation we’ve exhibited when it concerns matters at City Hall.

So long, political predictions

donald

My days as a political prognosticator are long gone.

I have been given several hints that I’m no longer able to predict political outcomes. They occur every time a prediction turns out to be, umm, wrong!

Not everyone has gotten the message, apparently, that I’m through making these predictions.

My wife and I were shopping for groceries the other day. I’m standing in the aisle with our shopping cart and a gentleman walks by, stops, looks at me and out of the blue asks: Does Trump have a chance?

I don’t know this gent. Never seen before in my entire life. My wife believes he recognized my picture from the days I wrote for the Globe-New here in Amarillo.

Man, the guy’s got a memory and a half; I left that gig more than three years ago!

My answer? Normally, I’d say “no.” But this is no ordinary election year.

And that brings me to why I’ve given up predicting anything.

Donald Trump continue to lead the pack of Republican presidential contenders/pretenders. And for the ever-lovin’ life of me, I don’t know why.

He denigrated John McCain’s Vietnam War service and declared he was a war hero only because he was captured by the North Vietnamese, who held him captive for more than five years and beat him within an inch of his life — on multiple occasions.

That did it, I said at the time. Trump is finished.

But oh-h-h-h no! There would be more.

He imploded at that initial GOP candidate joint appearance at the question posed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News about his views of women. Then he made that hideous remark about Kelly spewing blood “from her whatever.” That would do it, right? Hardly.

Then he poked fun at fellow Republican candidate Carly Fiorina’s appearance. Everyone in the country knew what he meant when he wondered whether anyone would vote for someone “with that face.” Trump said he was talking about her “persona.” Sure thing, Donald.

One more? Sure. How about when he said most recently that if Ivanka Trump weren’t his daughter, “I’d be dating her”? Who … on God’s Earth talks about their children like that?

There are other incidents. I dare not call them “gaffes,” because many among the Republican faithful seem to love this guy in spite of his serial tastelessness.

The McCain statement should have done him in. So should his remark about Kelly, or his quip about Fiorina, or his hideous reference to his daughter.

I was certain we would witness the end of this guy’s so-called “candidacy.”

Silly me. I was wrong, but I take small comfort in that other observers were wrong, too.

That’s how wacky this election cycle has gone.

Actions and statements that used to pass as committing political suicide have now become some kind of weird badge of honor.

How in the world do you ever hope to predict an outcome based on what you hear from the likes of Donald Trump?

That’s why I no longer won’t even try.

This is no normal election season.

 

 

How about other families, Mr. Speaker-to-be?

family_leave

Paul Ryan wants to be speaker of the House on the condition he be allowed to spend ample quality time with his family.

Agreed, young man. You deserve it. So does your family.

But here’s a snippet of a Facebook post by left-leaning former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich about whether Ryan believes all American families deserve to spend that kind of time together:

“Paul Ryan has made a condition of his taking the House Speakership that he get enough time with his family, including three school-age kids. ‘I cannot and will not give up my family time,’ he says. I commend him for his dedication to work-life balance (years ago I left Bill Clinton’s cabinet because I didn’t have enough time to spend with my then teenage sons). But I wish Ryan felt other Americans deserved the same. Members of Congress have paid sick leave, but Ryan has repeatedly voted against legislation to give federal employees paid parental leave. And he and his fellow Republicans have blocked legislation that would provide all workers with paid maternity leave and paid sick leave. Ryan’s 2014 budget would have cut federal funding for child care subsidies for low-income families.”

Well, congressman? Will you change your tune?

 

Sen. Cruz just isn’t ‘likeable’

cruz

Readers of this blog know that I’ve spent a good bit of time over the past couple of years writing unflattering things about U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

I don’t apologize for any of it.

George W. Bush the other day more or less climbed on board with many of the rest of us when he said of the junior Republican senator from Texas, “I just don’t like the guy.”

The former president was speaking at a private fundraiser in Denver on behalf of his brother, GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush, against whom Cruz is competing for his party’s nomination.

Ah, likeability.

Mr. President, I don’t like him either.

I’ve struggled a bit to say precisely why I dislike Cruz. I’ve never met him; forgive me for saying this, but I have met President Bush and I find him amazingly likeable.

Cruz, though, presents a different situation. Maybe he’s a terrific fellow — in private. The public version of Cruz, though, is remarkably unlikeable.

He blew into the Senate in 2013 and immediately began hogging lots of TV time. The mainstream media love the guy. He’s what the media describe as “good copy.” He was everywhere, making pronouncements on this and that, speaking of the venerable Senate institution as if he’d been there since The Flood. The young man seems to lack any self-awareness of how it looks to some of us who have watched him pontificate about the Senate and his new colleagues.

He’s managed to antagonize even his fellow Republicans, such as John McCain, who chastised Cruz for questioning whether Defense Secretary-designate Chuck Hagel — a fellow Republican, former senator and a combat veteran of the Vietnam War — was sufficiently loyal to the United States of America. He’s called Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and liar.

It’s all about Cruz.

Then he launched that presidential campaign of his barely a year after becoming a senator. I get that he’s not the first rookie congressional politician to reach for the brass ring. Barack Obama did it. JFK did, too. Heck, you even could say George W. Bush did, too, after serving only a term and a half in the only elective office he’d ever held — Texas governor — before being elected president in 2000.

It’s Cruz’s brashness, though, that seems so … umm … unlikeable.

Bush had it right when he blurted out to the political donors that he doesn’t like Sen. Cruz.

Does it matter that a president is likeable?

It matters to me. How about you?