Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Cheney's hubris is astounding

2 Comments

Listening to former Vice President Dick Cheney blast President Obama over his Iraq policy is like listening to — and I’ll have to give credit to a former editor of mine for this one — Xaviera “Happy Hooker” Hollander lecture us on chastity.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/obama-briefs-top-lawmakers-options-iraq-n134626

Cheney co-wrote with his daughter Liz an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he blamed Obama for the mess that has erupted in Iraq.

This man continues to spew nonsense with absolutely zero trace of self-awareness of his own role in creating the monster that is now roaring loudly across Iraq.

It was Cheney and President Bush who sold the world a bill of goods on Saddam Hussein’s bogus role in the 9/11 attacks; on his goal of developing nuclear weapons; of his possession of “weapons of mass destruction”; of how Iraqis would greet U.S. forces as “liberators” after they breezed into Baghdad.

Yet the former VP fails to recognize any complicity in the turmoil that has erupted in the country we occupied for nearly a decade.

And what did Republicans say in 2003 when Democrats criticized President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Oh, yes. They said such criticism gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Hmmm. Is that notion now off the table?

What in the world does it take to persuade this chicken hawk to shut his pie hole and follow the lead of the president he served for eight years? George W. Bush — following the lead of his own father, George H.W. Bush — has taken a vow of silence on the policies of his successor. I am quite certain “W” has plenty of thoughts on where he believes President Obama has gone wrong. That’s fine. He’s entitled.

However, President Bush recognizes we have one commander in chief at a time. If only the vice president who called so many of the shots in his own administration would come to the same recognition.

Uncategorized

Ask first, strike later?

Very soon, perhaps, we just might be able to learn how sincere congressional critics of President Obama are in their stated effort to be accountable for key decisions.

The president is weighing whether to launch air strikes against the ISIS insurgents seeking to take control of Iraq. Obama’s critics in Congress, namely Republicans, want him to “make a decision,” lead, take charge. They also want to have a say in whatever military action occurs.

The president, meanwhile, is considering whether to ask Congress. Does he make the decision to strike, then ask, then proceed — hopefully with an affirmative vote?

Will Obama seek approval for Iraq strike?

Or does he just act as commander in chief of the armed forces and hit the Iraqi insurgents hard in an effort to stop their advances on our allies fighting on behalf of the Iraqi government?

If the president takes the initiative, he’ll be criticized for acting like a “Lone Ranger” and for ignoring Congress. If he decides to ask Congress for authorization, he’ll be criticized for being wishy-washy.

Which is it, ladies and gentlemen of Capitol Hill? Do you want the president to act, or don’t you?

If someone were to ask me, I’d say that if there’s a chance of crippling ISIS with air strikes, the president ought to order them — without asking Congress for its authorization. The way Congress has performed in recent years, House members and senators would take weeks just to get organized to debate and then vote.

In this armed conflict, time is not our friend.

Uncategorized

POTUS always on duty

What is it about presidential critics — and I lump them all together regardless of party — that makes them forget that presidents of the United States never are off the clock?

Byron York, writing for the Washington Examiner, is at it again, chafing at the notion that President Obama played some golf while the Iraq crisis heats up.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/barack-obama-golfs-while-the-middle-east-burns/article/2549799

We’ve heard this so many times before I’ve lost count.

President George W. Bush was lampooned because he vacationed at his Central Texas ranch while crises erupted around the world; Bush also was known to tee it up as trouble arose.

President Ronald Reagan spent a great deal of time at his beloved Rancho Del Cielo in southern California.

President George H.W. Bush was photographed speeding around the Maine coastline aboard his “cigarette boat” while Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990.

President Bill Clinton also liked to play golf and, oh yes, the critics lampooned him too.

Presidents are on duty 24/7. They never go anywhere on the planet without the “football,” that case carrying the nuclear launch codes. They are briefed continually by their national security teams. They know what’s happening at all times.

York, though, takes umbrage at Barack Obama’s love of golf. Allow me this, Byron: Dwight Eisenhower liked to play the game as well, as did John Kennedy, Gerald Ford, G.H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

So bleeping what if the president enjoys some relaxation? Let him relax and seek to stay sharp when the chips are down and he has to respond to whatever crisis is erupting.

Uncategorized

Carrier headed to Persian Gulf

Here we go.

The United States has just dispatched a nuclear-powered attack aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush — one of the newest ships in the fleet — to the Persian Gulf.

Its mission is to protect Americans who might be put in harm’s way in the fighting that threatens to engulf Iraq.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/u-s-aircraft-carrier-ordered-persian-gulf-wake-iraq-unrest-n131256

This is a most interesting development.

Just so everyone is in the know, the George H.W. Bush is packing an immense amount of firepower.

I had the honor about two decades ago of spending a few nights aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, another of the Navy’s premier attack carriers. I was there to cover a tour led by the late U.S. Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Lufkin, who wanted to tour the ship, buck up the sailors and Marines aboard and tell them how proud he was of the service they perform for the country.

The Carl Vinson, I hasten to add, was the ship where they took Osama bin Laden’s body in May 2011; he then was “buried at sea,” reportedly in a respectful manner.

But to the point. The commanding officer of the Carl Vinson at the time was Capt. John Payne and he told us about the incredible amount of ordnance those ships pack while they’re deployed. I, of course, asked the obvious question: “Skipper, are you carrying any nukes?” He answered the only way he could: “You know I can’t answer that.” He had the slightest smile on his face as he replied.

There remains immense conventional firepower on these ships.

The George H.W. Bush is packing all of that — and perhaps even more, given that it is such a new ship.

This, I submit, is one of the “other options” President Obama is considering in response to the Iraq crisis. He has declared he won’t send ground troops back into Iraq. He hasn’t ruled out air strikes.

But with a massive warship headed straight into the war zone, my hunch is that we might be getting ready to unleash some of that firepower on the bad guys.

Stay tuned for the next act.

Uncategorized

No troops to Iraq? Good news

Imagine for a moment a situation in the White House, around April 1975.

North Vietnam is sending thousands of troops into South Vietnam. The United States has ended its role in that country by pulling its troops out. The South Vietnamese are left to defend themselves. They’re doing a lousy job of it.

NVA forces are storming toward Saigon and other key cities in the south. Gerald Ford’s national security team comes to him and says, “Mr. President, we have to send our troops back into South Vietnam to save that country from being conquered by the North. What’s your call, sir?”

Do you think the president ever would have given a moment of serious thought to such an idea? Hardly. President Ford didn’t do any of that. Heck, I seriously doubt that option ever was on the table.

It shouldn’t be now as Iraq fights to preserve its hard-won transition from ham-handed dictatorship to some form of democratic rule.

And that is why President Obama is correct to assert that our future involvement will not involve sending troops back to the battlefield.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/obama-we-will-do-our-part-iraq-wont-send-troops-n130536

The president today laid down an important marker for Iraq. “Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices,” he said. “Any actions that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces have to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq.

The chaos “should be a wakeup call to Iraq’s leaders,” he said, and “could pose a threat eventually to American interests as well.”

Are there some military options available? Perhaps, but they should involve air power only and perhaps only in the form of unmanned aircraft, drones, that could be deployed to fire heavy ordnance at the bad guys who are seeking to take control of the country.

Americans’ “extraordinary sacrifices” included thousands of dead and wounded. The country has no appetite for more war. However, we must do “our part,” as the president said, in trying to secure a country that may be headed for the brink.

Uncategorized

Cool it with 'We told you so'

Congressional Republicans, quite predictably, are now declaring “We told you so!” while insurgents storm Iraqi cities and threaten to launch an all-out civil war in a country once occupied and governed by the United States of America.

Let’s cool it a bit, ladies and gents.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/john-mccain-iraq-criticize-barack-obama-107780.html?hp=t3_3

Sunni Muslims — from the very same sect that gave us Saddam Hussein — have launched full-scale attacks on key Iraq cities. They’ve taken Mosul and Tikrit and are believed to be headed toward Baghdad. The Iraqi armed forces are trying to defend the cities, but so far with little success.

The Iraqis are asking President Obama to supply air power to strike hard at the insurgents. Republicans are demanding it, too. That might be a good option for the president to employ if we can bring enough air power to bear.

Republicans opposed the president’s withdrawal from Iraq, contending that the country wasn’t yet ready to defend itself fully against terrorists and insurgents.

Thus, they’re yelling it loudly that they were right and Obama was wrong.

Sen. John McCain — who never met a war he didn’t want the United States to fight — has demanded the resignation of the president’s entire national security team, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let’s look back, though.

* Was it prudent to launch a war against Iraq in the first place back in March 2003, when President Bush declared to the world that Saddam had chemical weapons and was going to develop nukes to launch against Israel? It turned out he had neither.

* Did the Republican president misread more than a decade ago the Iraqis’ ability to transition from totalitarianism to democratic rule when they had no history ever of living in freedom and liberty?

* Remember when Vice President Cheney said we’d be greeted as “liberators” and not “occupiers” when we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein? It didn’t happen. The war continued for years afterward, costing us more than 4,000 young American lives.

* And aren’t Americans just sick and tired of war? Don’t public opinion surveys tell us over and over that we no longer have the stomach for wars with no end?

The Iraq War went bad from the get-go. President Bush made a colossal mistake in linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks and that, I submit, is what we are reaping today.

So … the current president ought to order air strikes at the insurgents and try to put down the attacks without the use of ground forces. We’ve got plenty of ordnance we can drop on the bad guys.

As for the carping and chest-thumping on Capitol Hill, how about speaking with one voice and letting that voice belong to the commander in chief, who’s got to make the tough calls?

Uncategorized

Obama, Clinton set to lock arms?

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s probable campaign for the presidency is putting the man in whose administration she once worked into a complicated bind.

President Barack Obama clearly wants a Democrat to succeed him on Jan. 20, 2017 when the new president takes the oath of office. It’s been reported repeatedly that Obama and Clinton have developed a complicated relationship.

It once was testy, such as when they campaign against each other for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Sen. Obama then said to Sen. Clinton, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” Obama then won the presidency and appointed her as secretary of state.

It was then that she swallowed the Obama Kool-Aid, so to speak, and endorsed his foreign policy initiatives.

Now she’s back in “private life,” if you want to call it that. She’s written a book and is embarking on a nationwide book-promotion tour for “Hard Choices.” One of those choices might be to put some daylight between her world view and the view shared by her former political benefactor, the president.

Obama, Clinton start ’16 dance

And … oh, yes, the president’s complications get even more so. He has this vice president, Joe Biden, who also is thought to want to run for president. Vice President Biden has been indispensable at times, helping broker budget deals with his Senate pals and offering advice on a wide range of foreign policy issues and/or crises.

Their relationship also has been up and down as well. Still, Biden is the No. 2 man in the Obama administration.

Does the president choose between two of his most high-profile associates? How does he pick one while throwing the other one over? If it’s Clinton over Biden, how does the vice president continue to serve loyally and speak out publicly for the president? If it’s Biden over Clinton, how does the president deal with Hillary’s husband, the formidable 42nd president of the United States and one of the more effective surrogates Obama has employed on occasion?

It’s getting crowded at the top of the Democratic Party political pecking order.

Uncategorized

Envoy posts: political payoffs

It’s not exactly a dirty little secret, as many folks know this already … but ambassadorial appointments are more likely than not going to individuals who’ve helped presidents get elected or re-elected.

You can be sure as shootin’ on this one: President Obama’s appointment of Jane Hartley as the next U.S. ambassador to France is going to bring out the critics who’ll say they’re simply “shocked, shocked!” that the president would pick someone who so darn political.

Another Obama bundler named ambassador

That’s been the custom since the beginning of the Republic.

Hartley is a well-known “bundler” who helped the president win re-election in 2012. Bundlers are those who go around collecting large sums of money from various interest groups and then contribute that money to whatever political cause or candidate they support.

I have no clue whether she’s an expert on France or whether she even knows anything about The Bastille. She is yet another in a long line of ambassadorial appointments that fall into this category of so-called “political hack.”

The vast majority of the complaints will come, of course, from Republicans.

I shouldn’t have to remind our friends in the GOP — but I will anyway — that presidents from their party do the same thing. I’ll cite one example quite close to home.

The late Teel Bivins of Amarillo served in the Texas Senate for 15 years before President George W. Bush tapped him to become U.S. ambassador to Sweden. Did Bivins get the nod because he was an expert on preparing pickled herring? Oh no. He got it because of his own campaign grunt work raising money and speaking on behalf of President Bush during the 2000 campaign.

One of Bivins’s top Senate aides actually told me at the time the president was rewarding the senator for “15 years of service to Texas.” Sure thing.

Well, Teel Bivins’s service to Texas wasn’t the reason he was sent to Stockholm. Hartley’s service won’t matter when Hartley jets off — once the U.S. Senate confirms her — to take her post in Paris. It hardly ever is the case whenever presidents make these appointments.

These folks are rewarded for their “service,” all right. It’s all politics.

Uncategorized

'Think of these men'

Presidents of the United States often are called upon to pay tribute to their forebears, the people who made it possible — to a large degree — for them to hold the office they occupy.

President Reagan stood on a bluff overlooking Normandy’s Omaha Beach in 1984 to salute “the boys of Pointe du Hoc,” the U.S. Army Rangers who scaled the cliffs on June 6, 1944 to assault Nazi machine gun posts while launching the greatest amphibious assault in world history.

Today, one of President Reagan’s successors, President Obama, reminded the world of the courage of those men who stormed ashore that day 70 years ago, “wave after wave” of men seeking to liberate people “they had never met.”

“When you lose hope,” he said today in commemorating that monumental day, “think of these men.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/208446-obama-americas-claim-written-on-d-day

Indeed, cynics everywhere should think of what those men did that day — and what they had done for years prior and what they would do for another year after that landing.

Maybe a little reflection might wash away some of that cynicism.

Those brave young men saved the world from tyranny.

What’s left to say to those who are left?

Thank you.

Uncategorized

Congressional overreaction?

Congress’s reaction to the way President Obama brokered the deal to release Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl certainly is a serious matter.

But is it worth a loss of sleep in the residential quarters of the White House? I don’t think so.

The anger is a result of what I believe has been a nearly six-year estrangement between the White House and Capitol Hill. It’s been brought on by both sides.

Republicans who run the House of Representatives dislike Barack Obama for a lengthy list of reasons. Most of it is because of policy reasons. Some of it, though, seems to go beyond what most of us considerable to be reasonable. A handful of GOP lawmakers have gone to extreme lengths to insult the president, question his integrity, his qualifications for office, you name it.

Shall we recall, also, that the leading Senate Republican declared during Barack Obama’s first year in office that his “No. 1 goal is to make Obama a one-term president”? Mitch McConnell failed in that quest, as the president won re-election.

OK, there’s where Capitol Hill is to blame.

President Obama did not bother to learn the fine art of legislating during his brief time in the Senate. Therefore, he entered the White House believing in his way only. He hasn’t developed the kind of personal relationships presidents need when the chips are down.

As some of my veteran Texas political observer friends have reminded me over the years, Barack Obama needs a healthy dose of Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was a product of the Senate. He knew how to legislate. He knew how to cajole, persuade, threaten, compromise, surrender — all at the same time. He took those skills to the White House when he became president on Nov. 22, 1963.

Had the current president developed better relationships with Congress, he wouldn’t find himself being pounded incessantly now over this latest matter — the alleged failure to consult fully with Congress before agreeing to the release of the bad guys from Gitmo in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.

Whose fault is all this?

From my perspective — and recognizing my own bias — I would have to lay the bulk of the blame here on Congress. The leadership there has been bereft of ideas of their own. They’ve been intent on undoing the president’s agenda at every possible turn. From health care, to environmental policy and lately — and this one just slays me — to rolling back the first lady’s guidelines on serving healthy lunches to our school children attending public schools, congressional Republicans have dug in their heels.

None of that excuses the president’s refusal to build better relationships, but in my mind it suggests that Barack Obama has grown tired of fighting over every single issue that needs to be resolved.

Bergdahl’s release needed to occur. It came after some tough decision-making at the White House. It has enraged members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Should we take their outrage seriously? Sure. But it doesn’t mean that Planet Earth will spin off its axis if they don’t get their way in this latest public quarrel.