Tag Archives: Barack Obama

International news, national news

Let's stop quibbling over branding of war

President Obama went on offense today in declaring that the enemy in our current war against terror doesn’t comprise “religious leaders.”

We are fighting terrorists, pure and simple, he said.

So, the president will continue to resist referring to the enemy as “Islamic terrorists,” or “Islamist terrorists,” or some such derivation of the use of a word describing a great religion.

Obama: ISIS ‘aren’t religious leaders, they’re terrorists’

While some of us — including yours truly — disagree with the president’s decision to avoid using the term “Islamic terrorist” in describing our enemy, I am willing to drop the argument.

We’re now quibbling over semantics.

“We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” he said.  “No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”

Obama sounds just like his immediate predecessor, former President George W. Bush, on this matter. President Bush made precisely the same point when we went to war in Afghanistan immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Was there an outcry then about how we defined the enemy? If there was, well, it’s gotten lost on me.

Yet the outcry continues to this day about the current president’s use of language to describe the war that is on-going.

What difference does any of this make? What ought to matter is what we’re doing on the field of battle. We’re bombing Islamic State targets, along with aircraft being flown by our allies. I’m certain we’re killing terrorists; we’re even killing some of their leaders. We’re seeking to disrupt the terrorists’ command and control operations. We’re attempting to blast them into oblivion. We are deploying special operations units to hunt them down on the ground. We’re putting men and women at supreme risk of being captured.

OK, so we’re not calling them Islamic terrorists. The bad guys know who they are and what they represent. So do the good guys — and we’re acting accordingly.

Let’s stick to the mission in the field and quit arguing over what to call it.

 

International news

Fighting a war by fighting poverty

1 Comment

Having already criticized a State Department spokeswoman for suggesting that job creation should be a strategy in fighting the Islamic State, I am struck by the amazing outrage by right-wing media over her comments.

I hope I stipulated clearly that I wouldn’t join the right-wing hysteria in questioning President Obama’s commitment to destroying ISIL. Others have done enough of that already. Some of the comments are contained in the link attached to this blog post. Take a look. They’re pretty wild.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/17/right-wing-media-attack-obama-for-tying-terror/202548

Media Matters, a left-wing media watchdog website, has produced a most interesting video showing President Bush offering strikingly similar advice in 2002, at a conference in Monterrey, Mexico.

While the comments of State Department flack Marie Harf have drawn considerable condemnation, it fascinates me that President Bush said more than a dozen years ago, “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity.”

Perhaps Harf’s comments got blown out of proportion, and weren’t viewed in the totality of the message she sought to deliver on MSNBC’s “Hardball” show with Chris Matthews. I regret not digesting fully all of what she said, which included comments about the administration’s intention to keep killing terrorists as the war on terror rages on.

I just caution, though, that war remains the dirtiest business that humankind ever conducts. It must be fought hard and it must be fought with the intent to defeat the enemy. There can be no doubt about our enemy’s intentions on the current battlefield — and there should be no doubt about our own intentions.

If working quietly with nations that produce terror cells to alleviate the root cause of people taking up arms against the United States and our allies is part of an overall strategy that includes waging all-out war, then by all means let’s proceed.

Let’s never lose sight of the undeniable fact that we’re dealing with a nasty enemy, as Presidents Bush and Obama both have understood.

 

International news, national news

That's the ticket: Find jobs for ISIL terrorists

What in the world is the State Department thinking?

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told Chris Matthews on MSBNC’s “Hardball” talk show that the United States cannot win the war against the Islamic State by killing them, that we need to help them find jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/state-department-spokeswoman-floats-jobs-as-answer-to-isis/

Holy crap!

Here’s how FoxNews.com reported it: “‘We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. … But we cannot win this war by killing them,’ department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “We need … to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether –‘

“At that point, Harf was interrupted by host Chris Matthews, who pointed out, ‘There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims.'”

I’m not going to buy the notion that some critics of the Obama administration say about the president going soft on terrorists.

However …

This idea that we need to focus on job creation while waging war against these monsters is nuts in the extreme.

Harf did add that there’s “no easy solution.” She said American military operations would continue to kill ISIL leaders. But she said, “If we can help countries work at the root causes of this — what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?”

How about, Ms. Harf, we soft-pedal the job creation and push the pedal to the metal on our efforts at killing the bad guys?

War is a supremely unpleasant endeavor, but we’d better continue fighting it as if we intend to win it.

 

International news, religious news

'Islamic terrorism' off the table at summit

The White House is going to play host to a summit discussion on international terrorism.

You won’t hear the words “Islamic terrorism,” though, used in that context.

How come?

http://nypost.com/2015/02/17/islamic-extremism-off-limits-at-white-house-terrorism-summit/

Conservatives have been critical of President Obama for declining to refer to Islamist terrorism. He’s been parsing his language carefully to call them simply “terrorists,” even though we’re bombing Islamic State targets, seeking out al-Qaeda terrorist cells and killing its leaders, and enlisting the aid of other allies to find terrorists linked to other Islamic groups, such as Hezbollah, Boko Haram and Hamas.

Don’t mention the words “Islamic terrorist,” though at this summit.

It’s an interesting and at times troubling quibble over the use of language.

I get where the critics are coming from, but at the risk of doing something that annoys me at times — such as trying to read the minds of political leaders — I think I’m going to offer one simple hypothesis for the linguistic omission: Barack Obama doesn’t want the Islamic extremists to use any additional pretext for suggesting that the West is waging a religious war against Islam.

Obama’s immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, made the point time and again that the United States is not doing battle against Islam. Obama has carried that message forward as he has continued taking the fight to the terrorists.

Yet, the Islamic terrorists — I’ll call them such here — keep trying to recruit fighters by suggesting that our side is fighting a religious war. President Obama says “no!,” just as President Bush said “no!” before him.

To use such language at the White House summit, I’m guessing, would enflame the passions further among those who continue to believe the lie that we’re waging war against one of the world’s great religions.

 

legal news, State news

Immigration seas are roiling yet again

The political water under the immigration issue keeps tossing and turning to the point that it’s making me queasy.

The latest wave to crash against the immigration vessel came from the Southern Federal Judicial District of Texas and U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who late Sunday said President Obama’s executive action delaying deportation of illegal immigrants violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the way federal regulations are set up and how much public input is delivered.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/16/executive-action-immigration-ruling/

The Obama administration plans to appeal, most likely to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and state Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the judge’s ruling, saying it validates their contention that the feds reached beyond their grasp in delaying the deportation of illegal immigrants, about 1.46 million of whom live in Texas.

“President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat,” Abbott said in a statement, “and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”

Paxton agrees with the governor. “This decision is a victory for the rule of law in America and a crucial first step in reining in President Obama’s lawlessness,” he said in a statement. “This injunction makes it clear that the President is not a law unto himself, and must work with our elected leaders in Congress and satisfy the courts in a fashion our Founding Fathers envisioned.”

Did politics play a part in this federal judge’s decision? Judge Hanen was appointed by President George W. Bush and already is on record as suggesting the Department of Homeland Security was breaking immigration law by allowing undocumented immigrant children to be reunited with their parents rather than deporting or arresting them, according to the Texas Tribune.

Let’s wait, then, for progressives to bemoan the actions of an “unelected activist judge” who places himself above the law. I’m betting we won’t hear such an argument coming from that side of the aisle.

Something tells me the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to get this one.

In the meantime, pass the Dramamine.

 

legal news, national news

Let's try to define AG's 'independence'

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley wants the next attorney general to show some “independent” thought if she’s confirmed to run the Justice Department.

So far, Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch isn’t demonstrating the requisite independence to suit Chairman Grassley’s taste.

GOP cools on Loretta Lynch

The committee, which has to sign off on her nomination before the full Senate votes on her confirmation, delayed the vote for a couple of weeks. The reason? Lynch hasn’t put sufficient distance between herself and President Obama on the issue of immigration and the president’s executive actions that delays deportation of some 5 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.

I’ll admit to being a bit slow on the uptake at times, so I don’t quite understand this “independence” concern being expressed.

The president nominates Cabinet officers because he wants them to be on the same page as the person who nominates them. How can a member of a president’s Cabinet exhibit sufficient independence without undermining the overall goals that the administration seeks to achieve?

As The Hill reported: “I think [Attorney General Eric] Holder is running the Justice Department like a wing of the White House,” (Grassley) added. “That’s not right, and I want her to show us that she can be independent.”

So, is the chairman asking Lynch to buck the president on an issue he deems critical enough to take executive action?

How does, say, a defense secretary demonstrate independence when he or she assumes command of the Pentagon, which falls under the ultimate purview of the commander in chief? How does a treasury secretary oversee fiscal policy independent of the president who might have a clear set of economic principles he wants the country to follow?

Maybe there’s some kind of middle ground that Grassley and other Senate Republicans are seeking from the next attorney general.

I stand by my belief that the president’s prerogative should carry greater weight if he nominates someone who’s qualified to do a job.

Accordingly, Loretta Lynch is supremely qualified to be the next attorney general — even if she happens to support the policies of the president who appoints her.

 

national news, political news

GOP plays with fire over DHS funding

3 Comments

Congressional Republicans — and Democrats, for that matter — keep insisting that national security should be above partisan politics.

What, then, is going on with GOP threats to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because its congressional caucus is so upset with President Obama’s executive order on immigration?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/15/us-usa-congress-homeland-idUSKBN0LJ0P520150215

Good bleeping grief, people! The Homeland Security department, as its very name says, is charged with protecting the United States against internal and external threats. The 9/11 terrorist onslaught produced the agency, correct?

Now, though, it’s becoming a political football, being kicked around Capitol Hill by congressional Republicans who just cannot get over the notion that the president acted within his constitutional authority to delay the deportation of several million undocumented immigrants.

They are threatening to sue Obama over his action. They want to repeal it. They are insisting that he acted unlawfully. Yet no one has produced a shred of evidence to suggest that the president acted outside of the authority granted him by federal statute and the Constitution of the United States of America.

DHS money is going to run out on Feb. 27 unless Congress approves money to pay for it.

The House of Representatives has approved money for DHS, but have added some amendments stripping the president’s executive action of its authorization. Senate Democrats object to the GOP amendments and have held up the appropriation, drawing criticism — quite naturally — from House Republicans. Speaker John Boehner said the GOP has done its job; now it’s up to Senate Democrats.

That’s all fine, except Senate Democrats object to GOP complaints about the executive actions on immigration, which were legal and constitutional.

Thus, the gamesmanship.

What in the world has happened to good government?

 

International news

House speaker mounts lame defense

John Boehner must be fantasizing about being president of the United States.

Why else would the speaker of the House of Representatives take it upon himself to buck long-standing diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign head of government to speak to Congress without consulting first with the White House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/john-boehner-defends-netanyahu-invitation-115212.html?hp=c2_3

The speaker has defended his invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, saying he didn’t tell the White House because he didn’t want any interference from President Obama, who he thinks might seek to derail the invitation.

Such so-called “logic” simply dodges the real issue, which is whether it is appropriate for a legislative leader to go behind the back of the nation’s head of state — the president — in inviting a foreign dignitary to make a public speech before a joint congressional session.

To my way of thinking — and others as well — the speaker broke a long-held rule of diplomatic decorum.

And why? Because of some so-called tension between the president and the prime minister.

“There’s so secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu,” the Ohio Republican said. “I, frankly, didn’t want that getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.”

The “real opportunity,” according to Boehner, would be for Netanyahu to argue for stronger sanctions against Iran while the Islamic Republic is in the middle of nuclear disarmament negotiations with the State Department and other foreign governments. Barack Obama doesn’t want to impose any new sanctions while the negotiations are under way.

I agree totally with Boehner that Netanyahu is the “perfect person” to talk about radical Islamic terrorism and about the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That’s as far as Netanyahu should go, however, when he stands before a joint congressional session.

To lobby publicly for the increased sanctions now undercuts the president — which is another breach of decorum that Boehner has committed.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve got just one president at a time.

And, sir, it isn’t you.

 

political news

Obama 'selfie' reveals great divide

2 Comments

There can be no doubt — none, zero — that President Obama can do nothing without attracting the ire of his political foes.

His recent rash of “selfies,” distributed on BuzzFeed, has become the latest object of right-wing scorn.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/13/cue-conservative-media-outrage-over-obamas-self/202531

So help me, I don’t understand why the critics are so up in arms over these videos.

They show the president of the United States acting, well, like many of the rest of us. He’s borderline goofy, self-effacing, rather silly and, oh, maybe a little snarky.

Isn’t he acting like Mr. or Ms. Average Joe or Jane? Don’t others do much the same thing as what we’ve seen the president do?

The righties dislike the timing of one of his selfies, coming on the day that it was revealed Kayla Mueller died while in the hands of Islamic State terrorists. But wait! Didn’t Obama express heartfelt sympathy to Mueller’s family? Didn’t he assure them and the world that the terrorists would be brought to justice? Sure he did.

So, he takes a few minutes to promote Healthcare.gov through the recording of the selfie. What is the problem here?

It’s “beneath the dignity of the office,” we keep hearing.

I’ll just add that presidents of both political parties have acted like human beings while they’re in office. None of this is unique to the 44th president.

Let’s all just give the guy a break.

legal news, national news, political news

AG pick Lynch forced to wait … and wait

The game-playing is continuing on Capitol Hill regarding one key appointment to President Obama’s Cabinet.

It involves Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch, who’ll now have to wait until Feb. 26 for the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on her nomination to run the Justice Department.

What foolishness. What’s up with the newly empowered Republican Senate majority?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-delay-loretta-lynch-confirmation-115149.html?hp=c3_3

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Lynch wasn’t very responsive in answering the 200 or so written questions submitted by the panel. So he’s going to hold up the vote, even though virtually all the committee members’ minds are made up.

Lynch likely has the votes on the committee to be confirmed. She surely has the votes of the full Senate.

Meanwhile, the man GOP senators have come to loathe — Attorney General Eric Holder — remains on the job while Lynch is left twisting in the wind while the new Senate majority gets around to scheduling a vote to confirm her.

Lynch, the current U.S. attorney for New York’s Eastern District, is highly qualified to become the next attorney general. Several key Republican senators already have declared their endorsement of the Democratic president’s nominee.

Chairman Grassley, though, wants to drag it out some more — for reasons only he seems to get.

Some GOP senators object to Lynch’s support of the president’s executive action on immigration — as if they’d expect her to oppose the decision made by the man who has selected her to become attorney general.

Do they actually expect her to oppose the president? Do they really and truly believe she should undercut the nation’s chief executive?

Let’s take this vote, send it to the full Senate, then let all 100 senators vote on Loretta Lynch’s nomination.

Shall we?