Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Senate saves Obama’s Iran deal

iran-nuclear-deal-2

With “approval” — if you want to call it that — of the Iran nuclear deal all but sewn up, it’s good to examine briefly how President Obama will be able to declare victory.

This is not what you’d call a smashing mandate. He will have won this fight on a split decision, a legislative technicality.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., today delivered the 34th Democratic vote in favor of the deal. What does that mean? It means that if the Republican-led Senate approves a resolution opposing the deal, Democrats now have enough votes to sustain a presidential veto when it comes; the Senate needs a two-thirds vote to override a veto but Mikulski’s endorsement of the deal prevents that from occurring.

But there’s more to this drama.

Senate Democrats now are seeking seven more votes to give them 41 votes in favor of the deal, which would enable them to filibuster the GOP resolution opposing it to death. It takes three-fifths of the body to stop a filibuster. If Democrats get to the magic number, then the resolution won’t get to President Obama’s Oval Office desk.

Game over.

This is a big deal for the president. It would have been far better for him to win outright approval of the deal, which — according to negotiators — “blocks all pathways” for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. That has been goal No. 1 all along. No one with a semblance of sanity want that rogue state to develop an atom bomb. The deal is designed to prevent it from happening.

Of course, Republicans oppose it. Maybe it’s just because they detest the Democratic president so much that they’ll seek to deny him any kind of diplomatic victory.

The alternative to this deal? That remains a mystery. As Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo., said, there’s no better deal out there. Bennett is officially in the “undecided” category of senators.

If a Plan B includes going to war with Iran to prevent it from obtaining a nuke, I’ll settle gladly for this diplomatic solution.

Don’t look for any payoff in the near future. The impact of this deal will become known long after Barack Obama leaves office.

Senate saves Iran deal

Shooting statement falls far short

cop vigil

President Obama isn’t tone deaf. He can’t be. He’s been elected twice to the highest office in the land and he did it with profound political savvy and insight.

Why, then, has he fallen woefully short in condemning the horrifying murder the other night of a Harris County sheriff’s deputy?

Darren Goforth was shot in the back as he pumped gas in his patrol car in Houston. He fell and the gunman then emptied his pistol into Goforth’s body.

A 30-year-old man, Shannon Miles, was apprehended a short time later and charged with capital murder.

That’s not the whole story.

Goforth was white. Miles is black. The president has been hair-trigger quick to condemn the shooting of young black men by white officers — as he should be. However, his statement on Goforth’s murder doesn’t measure up to the outrage he has expressed when police officers do the shooting.

The president needs to call for a federal investigation into whether the suspect — whose action was videotaped by surveillance cameras — was acting in response to the protests that have occurred in recent weeks by those condemning police activity. They’ve chanted “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em in bacon!”

The president did call Deputy Goforth’s wife to express his sympathy. He said in a statement that Goforth’s death is “unacceptable.” Gee, do ya think?

Come on, Mr. President. Re-dial your political radar. You need to use the bully pulpit of your high office to call attention to attacks on police officers who take an oath to protect and defend communities against the very people who would shoot them in the back.

 

Who’s in charge of U.S. foreign policy?

cotton

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., thinks it’s OK to travel abroad and to meet with a foreign head of government for the purpose of undermining a key foreign policy initiative.

It’s not OK. At least it’s never been acceptable … apparently until now in some circles.

Cotton went to Israel and Is meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to figure out a way to torpedo the Iran nuclear deal brokered by the United States and five other great powers.

Cotton’s meeting with Netanyahu now has become the norm, it seems, for critics of President Obama. They forget what they said when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. Vice President Dick Cheney reminded us then that only the president can conduct foreign policy.

Except that Pelosi coordinated her visit with Bush administration officials and had made sure she didn’t interfere with what President Bush’s goals were as they regarded U.S. policy toward Assad.

Cotton said: “Today’s meeting only reaffirms my opposition to this deal. I will stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and work with my colleagues in Congress to stop this deal and to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself against Iran and its terrorist surrogates.”

We’ve only got one president of the United States at a time. And at this moment, it isn’t Tom Cotton.

 

Now it’s a mountain name that brings criticism

Mount_McKinley,_with_US_Flag_at_Eielson_Visitor_Center_(5300913475)

You almost could have predicted this would happen.

President Obama decided to rename Mount McKinley, which had been named in honor of a Republican president, William McKinley. The tallest peak in North America now is called Denali, which is a native Alaskan term.

But here it comes: Ohio Republicans are angry at the mountain renaming. They think it’s a slight to a GOP president who, by the way, never set foot in Alaska, let alone climb the peak.

Ohio GOP up in arms

House Speaker John Boehner, who hails from Ohio, says the president shouldn’t have acted unilaterally. Other lawmakers from Ohio say they’ll try to block the name change legislatively.

Oh yes. Then there’s Donald Trump, the GOP front runner for the party’s presidential nomination, who says if elected president he’ll undo Obama’s decision.

Alaska’s Republicans, though, are in favor of the name change. The state’s senior U.S. senator, Lisa Murkowski, its House member, Don Young, and its junior senator, Dan Sullivan, vow to block any effort to reverse the decision.

Alaska has been calling the peak Denali since 1975. The president’s action changes it in the federal registry of geographic names.

Oh, but it’s now a slap in the face to a former president who happened to hail from Ohio and that it detracts from his legacy.

Good grief. Can we call a halt to this partisan bickering over an issue that makes not a bit of difference, except perhaps to the native Alaskans who can recite the grand peak’s new name with their own sense of pride?

What in the world is wrong with that?

What did the PM know about bin Laden?

Pakistani media personnel and local residents gather outside the hideout of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following his death by US Special Forces in a ground operation in Abbottabad on May 3, 2011. The bullet-riddled Pakistani villa that hid Osama bin Laden from the world was put under police control, as media sought to glimpse the debris left by the US raid that killed him. Bin Laden's hideout had been kept under tight army control after the dramatic raid by US special forces late May 1, 2011 in the affluent suburbs of Abbottabad, a garrison city 50 kilometres (30 miles) north of Islamabad.  AFP PHOTO/ AAMIR QURESHI (Photo credit should read AAMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images)

Oh, how I wish I could be a fly on one of the White House walls when Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif comes for a visit with President Obama.

I would love to hear a conversation that goes something like this:

President Obama: Welcome, Mr. Prime Minister. But let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we? I know you weren’t in office on May 2, 2011 when our SEALs took out Osama bin Laden. But I have to ask, didn’t you get a full national security briefing from your predecessor when you took over?

Nawaz Sharif: Well, yes, Mr. President. Of course.

Obama: What did he tell you about bin Laden’s presence in Afghanistan, where our men killed him while he was hiding in plain sight in Abbottabad? Surely he knew bin Laden was there, right?

Sharif: I don’t know what you’re talking about …

Obama: Oh, stop right there. Everyone with half a brain in this country believes your government knew that bin Laden was in that large compound just a stone’s throw from that military academy. How could your intelligence folks have missed detecting his presence?

Sharif: We don’t snoop and spy on everyone and everything in our country.

Obama: Knock it off. This guy was the most wanted terrorist on the planet. The entire civilized world — and that include Pakistan — wanted him killed or captured. You operate a sophisticated intelligence network there.

Sharif: It can’t detect every person’s move.

Obama: But surely it can detect the movements of a man who stood 6 feet 5 inches tall and whose face has been plastered on TV screens around the world for a decade, ever since the 9/11 attacks.

Sharif: If you think our government knew of bin Laden’s presence, is that why you launched the raid in secret, without ever telling us you were invading our airspace?

Obama: Airspace … shmairspace, Nawaz. The bad guys invaded our airspace on 9/11 — and killed 3,000 innocent victims. Bin Laden took credit for doing that damage. Do I really care about airspace concerns? No. I wanted him dead and by God, we were intent on making sure we killed him.

Sharif: Well, back to your initial question. I wasn’t told anything about bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan. Even if I was told, I cannot disclose  national security secrets, not even to you.

***

Will this conversation occur when the Pakistani prime minister visits the White House on Oct. 22? Oh, probably not. Then again, not every conversation occurs when there’s media present.

I’m going to hope that Barack Obama presses his guest for some answers to the burning question: What did the Pakistanis know about Osama bin Laden and when did  they know it?

Pakistani PM to visit White House

 

Some self-awareness, Mr. Vice President

cheney

Dick Cheney’s utter lack of self-awareness is an astounding thing to behold.

The former vice president and his daughter, Liz, have co-written a book, “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America.” In an extended excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal, Cheney writes that President Obama has made “false” statements about the Iran nuclear deal.

False statements? Yes, the man who orchestrated — along with the rest of the George W. Bush national security team — this nation’s invasion of Iraq on a whole array of falsehoods has now laid the charge on the man who succeeded President Bush in the White House.

He has joined the GOP amen chorus in blaming Obama for the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, contending that the United States has “abandoned” Iraq and is “on course” to do the same thing in Afghanistan.

I don’t disagree with the title of the Cheneys’ book. The world does need a “powerful America.” I will simply add my own view that the world still has a powerful America in its midst.

We remain the world’s pre-eminent military power — by a long shot. Our economy is still the envy of the world. People are aching to gain entry into the United States. Yes, many of them come here illegally, but many more come here legally and in accordance with federal immigration law.

Let us stop denigrating our current role in the world — as many of the GOP presidential candidates have done — by suggesting we’ve lost our place at the top of the geopolitical food chain.

As for the former vice president, he needs to take time for some serious introspection before he accuses others of stating foreign-policy falsehoods.

Read more on this link.

Isn’t America still ‘great’?

ballcap trump

Tod Robberson, writing a blog for the Dallas Morning News, poses a question that’s been nagging at me since I first heard Donald Trump make a certain proclamation.

Trump has promised to “make America great again.” He’s been wearing a gimme cap at campaign rally with the words written across the front of it.

My thought always has been that the United States is a great nation. It’s a superpower with unprecedented military capability. It’s economy remains — for now, at least — No. 1 in the world.

And people from other nations are flocking here — yes, even legally — to start new lives. As Robberson pointed out: “In fact, the very immigration issue that Trump has made the focal point of his campaign belies the assertion that America isn’t great. Why would millions of people risk their lives to come to this country, legally or illegally, if there weren’t something of overwhelming value drawing them specifically here? It’s actually a lot easier to migrate to Canada, Europe, Costa Rica or Brazil. But for some reason, people want to come to America. That’s because we are still the greatest nation on earth.”

Trump, though, is suggesting that the United States no longer is “exceptional,” to borrow a popular Republican mantra of past campaigns against the current Democratic president.

Robberson also shoots down the notion that during the Ronald Reagan years in the White House that the United States stood as the model for greatness that today’s GOP seeks to emulate.

It’s worth a look: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/make-america-great-again-trump-needs-to-rethink-his-rhetoric.html/

I’m just wondering how Trump gets away with asserting the United States of America isn’t still the greatest nation on the planet.

 

 

Obama got the blame … where’s the credit?

oil prices

Let’s flash back to around 2010.

Oil prices were spiking. They surpassed $100 per barrel of crude. The price of gasoline also skyrocketed. It passed $4 per gallon in some parts of the country; it got nearly that high in the Texas Panhandle.

Who got the blame? President Barack H. Obama. His congressional critics, namely the Republicans, kept hammering the president over the price spikes. Why, they just couldn’t stomach the idea of watching these gas prices heading into the stratosphere and they had to blame someone. Obama was the target.

Then something happened.

Automakers began making more fuel-efficient cars after they were bailed out partly with federal government stimulus money. Research on alternative energy sources ramped up. Other oil-producing nations’ economies began to falter, diminishing demand on fossil fuels around the world.

The price of oil today is less than $40 per barrel, less than half of where it was five years ago. The price of gasoline? Today in Amarillo, regular unleaded is being pumped at $2.26 per gallon in most stations.

Is the president getting the “blame,” let alone the credit, for any of this?

Not on your life.

How come?

 

Deal makes it easier to bomb Iran

iran20a

You’ve got to hand it to the Obama administration. It’s finding intriguing ways to sell a nuclear arms deal to its critics.

Consider a tactic being employed by President Obama’s team as it seeks congressional support for the deal that blocks Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

It goes like this: Allowing inspection of nuclear development operations will give the United States greater intelligence capabilities — in case it decides to bomb the Iranians.

What a deal. Such intelligence thus, the theory goes, placates those who hate the deal because it’s the result of negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which they don’t trust as far as they can throw them. Heck, they’d rather bomb them than talk to them. This deal, though, makes it easier to bomb Iran if they break the rules regarding inspections.

As one who supports the deal, I find this marketing strategy quite intriguing.

Politico reports: “If you want to bomb the program, you should be super-excited about this deal,” said Austin Long, a professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs who studies U.S. military options against Iran. “The more you know about Iran’s nuclear program and the industrial infrastructure behind that program, the better you will be able to target it.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-argument-bomb-121613.html#ixzz3jq412Fxk

The Obama administration — along with the officials from the other great powers that negotiated the deal — insist that it “blocks all pathways” to Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon.

They have rules they must follow. If they don’t, we’ll have inspectors on the ground collecting intelligence.

Then it could be “bombs away!”

 

Was the Carter presidency a failure?

camp david accords

Former presidents aren’t immune from criticism, even when they’re struggling against what might be a terminal illness.

Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Setting that aside, it’s been said many times — usually by Republican politicians — that President Carter’s four years in the White House constituted a “failed presidency.”

Interesting. Let’s look briefly at the record.

Yes, the economy tanked badly during Carter’s term. Why? One reason was the huge spike in oil prices. Lending institutions panicked. They jacked up interest rates way beyond what was normal or acceptable. Inflation took hold. Was all of that the president’s fault? Hardly. But it happened on his watch, so I guess he deserves some of the blame.

The president did a poor job of assuring Americans that they would be all right. He spoke glumly to us, although he never used the word “malaise.”

Foreign policy? Let’s see.

He negotiated a peace treaty in 1979 between ancient enemies Israel and Egypt. He turned them into allies. He took Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Camp David, clunked their heads together and got them to sign the most important Middle East peace accord in, well, the history of the region. It has held firm to this day.

He helped negotiate a treaty that handed over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. Imagine that: giving to a nation cut in half by a U.S.-built canal territory that belonged rightfully to its people.

The president signed a treaty with the Soviet Union that helped reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both nations’ arsenals.

Were there missteps? Sure. He didn’t handle the Mariel boatlift of Cuban refugees well. He acknowledged just recently that is one of the regrets of his presidency.

Now, the big one: the Iranian hostage crisis. Fifty-two Americans were taken captive in Tehran in November 1979. The Islamic revolution had overthrown the shah and those “students” were angry because the shah had gotten medical attention in the United States. Was that the president’s fault?

Was it his fault that the mission to rescue the hostages in April 1980 ended tragically in the desert? Just as Barack Obama’s critics have said he took too much credit for the successful mission in May 2011 to kill Osama bin Laden, Jimmy Carter took too much blame for the failure of the Desert One mission to bring our hostages home.

Let us remember, too, that they came home safely on Ronald Reagan’s first day in office. The Iranians clearly wanted to stick it to President Carter by waiting until he no longer was president to end the crisis.

Was it a troubled presidency? Certainly. A failed one? In my view, no.