Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Thornberry preps for center stage

In what might be the least surprising critique of President Obama’s decision to accelerate the drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry has begun taking the first baby steps from the back bench to the center stage of American foreign policy debate.

Thornberry, the 13th Congressional District representative since 1995, said the president’s decision is too much too quickly. Imagine my surprise: a Republican congressional committee chairman in waiting second-guessing the Democratic commander in chief.

Lawmaker: Obama’s ‘heart really isn’t in it’

Thornberry made his remarks to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank full of Obama critics. He was preaching the choir, of course, which is what Democratic and Republican politicians always do. They look for friendly audiences where their applause lines will get the loudest response.

I am left to wonder whether Thornberry — the likely next chairman of the House Armed Services Committee — thinks it’s always prudent to deploy American forces into every battlefield that erupts. Barack Obama reiterated this week that the U.S. military remains the strongest in world history, but that it need not be deployed as the “hammer” to pound down every crisis “nail.”

As the president said today in his commencement speech to West Point cadets, the United States stands ready to use force only when it is in our national interest. Of course, that won’t satisfy the armchair hawks on Capitol Hill who cannot quite grasp the idea that sometimes diplomacy and seeking to build international coalitions is more suitable than charging in all alone.

The Iraq War? Remember how we were told we’d be greeted as “liberators” when we plowed across the border in March 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein? It didn’t quite work out that way.

Well, Thornberry likely will cruise to re-election this November against a token Democratic foe. He’s been in the Capitol Hill background for his entire congressional career. When Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., retires at the end of the year, he’ll likely hand the gavel over to Thornberry, the panel’s vice chairman.

I’m hoping for a bit more bipartisanship from the new chairman. We’ll likely not get it.

Still, I’ll await with interest Chairman Thornberry’s entrance onto center stage.

Uncategorized

Texas Democrats still floundering

David Alameel.

Say that name a few times. Have you heard it before? Probably not.

Alameel stumbled out of the tall grass some time ago to run for the U.S. Senate. He’s now the Democratic Party nominee who will challenge Republican incumbent John Cornyn this fall.

To get that nomination, though, Alameel had to defeat someone named Keesha Rogers in the Democratic runoff. Rogers had called for — get this — the impeachment of President Obama.

Therein, boys and girls, lies an answer as to why the Texas Democratic Party is in such a shambles.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/democrat-david-alameel-handily-defeats-kesha-roger/nf8Gd/

There exists no Democratic statewide officeholder to challenge the Republicans. The party is still looking for candidates to run against powerful GOP incumbents.

Democrats are trying to talk bravely about turning the state from Republican red to swing state purple. Some folks have actually said with a straight face that this is the year the transition begins.

I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Yes, the party has two quite credible candidates running at the top of the state ballot: Wendy Davis for governor and Leticia Van de Putte for lieutenant governor. Both are state senators, both are articulate and fearless. Their chances of winning remain dicey.

I keep coming back to David Alameel, wondering: Who is this guy?

I don’t know much about him, other than he’s a multi-gazillionaire businessman who’ll likely pour a lot of his own money into the Senate campaign. Other mega-rich guys have won in Texas, the latest of whom, Lt. David Dewhurst, got his head handed to him in the GOP runoff by Dan Patrick in the race for lieutenant governor; but before Tuesday’s vote, Dewhurst had been a successful self-funded politician.

It’s instructive, to me at least, that the state of Texas Democratic Party can be summed up in the fact that its nominee for the U.S. Senate had to endure a runoff against a fellow Democrat who wants to impeach the president of the same party.

Setting aside the races for governor and lieutenant governor, Texas Democrats have a ways to go before finding their way out of the wilderness.

Uncategorized

Time to end the Afghan War

President Barack Obama said it succinctly today: It is harder to end a war than to start one.

With that, the nation’s longest war now appears to be drawing to a close.

I’m glad about that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obama-afghanistan-troops-stay-9800-stay-2014-west-point-107115.html?hp=l2

The president’s critics were quick — as they have been all along — to blast him for setting a well-chronicled timetable for withdrawal. The United States, Obama said, will leave 9,800 troops in Afghanistan in an “advisory” capacity by the end of this year; we’ll draw down to that level from the current level of 30,000-plus.

Our combat role will end. Afghans will be responsible for their own country’s security. Our war effort will be over.

The critics say the timetable gives the Taliban time to plan, strategize and hit back hard at the Afghan government that seeks to cement its control.

That’s an interesting view, to which I have a single-word response: Vietnam.

President Nixon did not set a timetable for the “Vietnamization” effort he began shortly after taking office in 1969. But by the time he left office in August 1974, our combat role had diminished to near zero. Fewer than nine months later, in April 1975, the North Vietnamese communists had mustered enough firepower to overrun South Vietnam.

My point is this: With our without a timetable, the other side is going to keep fighting. The task, then, is to prepare our allies in power to defend themselves adequately against an enemy that’s been degraded significantly over the course of the past dozen years.

As the president noted, al-Qaida isn’t extinct. Its leadership has been decimated, Osama bin Laden has been eliminated, its organization has been scattered. Is it still operational? To a large degree, yes. Our forces, though, continue to hunt down and kill bad guys when and where we find them. That effort will — and should — continue.

It’s time to end this war.

Uncategorized

Obama got Syria 'right'

Once in a blue moon, politicians get praise from the most unlikely of sources.

Such as when an Israeli prime minister known for his hawkish views relating to anything involving highly hostile neighbors heaps praise on you for not using military force in a crisis.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the hawk’s hawk — said President Obama was right to back away from his “red line” threat to use force against Syria when it became known that the Syrian government had used poison gas on its citizens.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-22/netanyahu-says-obama-got-syria-right

In an expansive interview with Bloomberg News, Netanyahu said President Obama offered “the one ray of light in a very dark region” when he backed off the threat of force. What happened next, of course, was when the Russians brokered a deal to get the Syrians to turn over their stockpile of chemical weapons.

“We are concerned that they may not have declared all of their capacity. But what has been removed has been removed. We’re talking about 90 percent. We appreciate the effort that has been made and the results that have been achieved,” Netanyahu told Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

Goldberg makes it clear in the interview that Netanyahu and Obama haven’t yet healed the deep rifts between the men, who he writes have a “famously contentious relationship.”

It’s intriguing, though, to hear Netanyahu offer words of encouragement for the use of diplomacy over military action, which is the course sought by Obama in trying to find a path to peace in the Middle East.

Indeed, when someone with Netanyahu’s experience battling next-door enemies who swear to eradicate his country speaks of the virtues of diplomacy, there ought to be lessons learned by other critics who have far less skin in this game. I refer, of course, to Obama’s critics at home who continue to harp on the need to employ “the military option” to solve foreign crises.

The Israeli leader has many issues yet to settle with the United States. For example, Netanyahu wants to continue building Israeli settlements on land taken during the 1967 Six-Day War, something the United States opposes.

However, the cause for diplomacy has chalked up an important ally who has an up-close stake in finding peace in one of the world’s most violent regions.

Uncategorized

Sen. Obama MIA at vets panel meetings

Hell has frozen over.

I am about to agree with something Karl Rove has said, which is that President Obama needs to take care when referencing his work as a U.S. senator on behalf of veterans.

Barack Obama served for three years on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. He was critical of the Bush administration’s treatment of veterans. However, according to Rove — aka “Bush’s brain” — Sen. Obama often was a no-show at committee meetings when veterans health care issues came up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/karl-rove-senator-obama-veterans-affairs-107033.html?hp=r7

Other senators have noted the same thing about Sen. Obama, who reportedly had his eye on a bigger prize almost the moment he won the Senate seat in a landslide over transplanted Republican ultraconservative candidate Alan Keyes.

Veterans health care is in the news, of course. A scandal has erupted over the deaths of about 40 veterans who waited far too long for health care at the Phoenix, Ariz., VA hospital. There’s also the issue of cooked-up records showing patients were getting care in a timely manner. Vets Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki is on the griddle over it, but so far President Obama is standing behind the embattled Cabinet member.

Back to Rove’s point.

The president is right to make veterans health care a major issue. He is right to be angry; a lot of us out here are angry — and scared — as well. The president is correct to demand answers and corrective measures. Heads ought to roll once the evidence is in and Shinseki should resign if it turns out he was negligent.

President Obama, though, is learning a terrible lesson in how politicians cannot shake their own personal history when issues come in direct conflict with their record.

Rove misfired badly in suggesting Hillary Rodham Clinton may have suffered a “brain injury” when she fell in 2012. He has found the mark, though, in questioning much of the president’s demonstrated commitment to veterans health care issues, given his spotty attendance at Senate hearings.

There. That is likely to be last time I’ll say something supportive about Karl Rove for a long while.

Uncategorized

VA boss Shinseki on his way out?

Maybe I’m reading too much into things at this moment, but my trick knee is throbbing and it’s telling me Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki’s time in public life might be nearing an end.

Congressional Democrats have joined their Republican colleagues in urging his ouster in light of the veterans’ health care scandal that is mushrooming across the country. Vets have died while waiting for health care; VA officials reportedly have doctored waiting times to make themselves look good.

All this has been done on Shinseki’s watch.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/206869-dems-break-with-obama-call-for-shinsekis-sacking

President Obama made a strong statement Wednesday in which he condemned the activities about which we already know. He called them “disgraceful” and said they “will not be tolerated.”

He had met with Shinseki privately at the White House and, as The Hill notes, the former Army general was not at the president’s side when he lowered the boom on the agency Shinseki runs.

I refuse to accept the criticism that Obama was too timid in his response. He is looking for all the facts before making any firm decisions. Congressional Republicans, therefore, need to zip it before popping off about what the president should do.

It’s the call for Shinseki’s ouster from congressional Democrats, though, that should have the president’s ear. He did say Wednesday that the outrage spans political partisanship and that all Americans should be angry over the deaths of veterans who were awaiting health care from an agency that made a vow to provide them the best care possible.

This controversy won’t go away until the president gets all the answers he demands — and then acts on the recommendations he receives.

It’s looking to me, though, as if one recommendation — to show the Vets Affairs secretary the door — already is on the table.

Uncategorized

Partisan battle over vets' health care?

The most interesting thing President Obama said today in his remarks about the Veterans Administration health care scandal involved what he hopes will be the lack of partisan rancor in this discussion.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus didn’t hear that part of the president’s remarks … apparently.

“Why did President Obama wait to address this situation only to ask our veterans for more time and to offer nothing but words?” Priebus asked.

Nothing but words? What does the RNC chairman want Barack Obama to do? Fire everyone? Does he want the Justice Department to bring criminal charges without first knowing what the evidence is to charge someone?

For crying out loud, does he want the president to don some surgical scrubs and tend to veterans’ health needs himself?

Give me a break.

The VA scandal is huge. Veterans reportedly have died while waiting for health care that had been delayed well past what is acceptable. VA officials allegedly cooked up wait-time lists that were bogus to cover their backsides.

Let’s stipulate that this is unacceptable at every possible level imaginable.

Republicans are angry, as are Democrats. The president noted, though, that this is requires an American response that goes beyond partisan posturing. Priebus is trying to gain some kind of political advantage here.

The president vowed to turn over every stone to find out what has gone so horribly wrong with our veterans’ health care system. I am quite sure I watched an angry commander in chief offer some pointed remarks today.

Enough of the peanut-gallery remarks, Chairman Priebus.

Uncategorized

Get the truth at VA, Mr. President

It is fair to assume that President Obama is as angry as he says he is about the growing scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The mess created by what appears to be a deliberate cover-up of health care for veterans is a blight on his presidency, not to mention the reputation of the agency charged with caring for our veterans.

The president today vowed repeatedly to get to the bottom of the scandal and, while expressing support for Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, has left the door open for the retired four-star Army general to leave on his own — or be fired — if the evidence takes investigators to his office.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/president-obama-eric-shinseki-va-106938.html?hp=f1

I accept the president’s declaration of outrage as sincere. This is a horrible circumstance that, according to the president, isn’t anything new. It goes back “decades,” he said. Veterans are waiting too long to receive urgent medical care and that must end.

As a Vietnam War veteran myself — but one who enjoys excellent health (knock on wood) — I couldn’t agree more with that desire.

The issue blew wide open with reports of at least 40 veterans dying while in the care of the Phoenix, Ariz., veterans hospital; what’s more, we now know of bogus documentation that fabricated the vets’ wait time that in reality went far beyond the two-week maximum required by VA policy. Now we hear of extreme delays at VA medical centers in other states, including Texas.

President Obama said these delays won’t stand. We owe it to our veterans to get the top-notch care they deserve, he said, and he vowed not to rest until he finds out the whole truth about what has gone wrong, who is responsible and who to bring to account for this outrageous circumstance.

I’m with you, Mr. President, in your search for what’s gone so terribly wrong at the VA. You’d better know, though, that millions of sets of eyes will be watching you to ensure you keep your promise to follow the trail toward the truth — no matter where it leads.

Uncategorized

President preaches success

Barack Obama was preaching to the choir the other day.

He declared during a Democratic Party fundraiser that Americans “are better off now than when I came into office.”

Do you think?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/206591-obama-americans-better-off-under-his-presidency

That the president would say such a thing is no surprise. Incumbents make these proclamations when they’re out raising money for their party in an election year.

But … wait for it.

The other side is going to level the equally non-surprising broadsides at the president for dredging up that bad old recession he inherited when he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.

You remember that time, right? The job market was hemorrhaging jobs by 700,000 — give or take — a month. Unemployment was heading toward a peak of around 10 percent. Banks were failing. Auto dealerships were tanking. Oh, and we were fighting two wars and were losing American lives on Iraq and Afghanistan battlefields daily.

Have we returned to some Nirvana after that terrible experience? No. We’re still on the road back.

Joblessness is down. The private sector is adding jobs instead of losing them. The auto industry has returned to fighting trim. Bank failures have ceased. The budget deficit — which accelerated as the government sought to jump-start the economy — is receding. Congress has enacted a health care overhaul that is working.

I believe the president has reason to crow about the state of things in the country, despite the continuing rhetoric from the opposition that is scouring the landscape for anything on which to stain Barack Obama’s record.

Hey, that’s politics. Republicans want to control the Senate as well as the House of Reps; Democrats want to keep control of the Senate. Both sides seek to exploit advantage where they find it.

Not quite two years after a bruising re-election campaign in which Republicans sought to focus on the economy, the president now can turn to that very issue as a signal that we’re on the right track.

To paraphrase GOP presidential nominee Ronald Reagan’s famous query during the 1980 campaign: Are we better off now than we were six years ago?

I’d have to say “yes.”

Uncategorized

Ready for a GOP takeover?

Many of my friends, if not most of them, think I live, breathe and eat politics 24/7.

They may be right. One of them posed the question to me this afternoon: “Are you ready for a Republican takeover of the Senate?”

Yes. I am.

Do I predict it will happen when the midterm elections are concluded this November? Not necessarily, but it’s looking like a distinct possibility.

A few Democratic Senate incumbents might be in trouble. What’s more likely, though, is that Republicans will pick up seats that had been held by Democrats in GOP-leaning states. South Dakota is likely to from Democrat to Republican; so might West Virginia.

Meanwhile, Louisiana’s Democratic incumbent could lose to a GOP challenger. Arkansas was thought to be vulnerable to a GOP switch, but the Democratic incumbent there is making a comeback.

I’m not sure a GOP takeover of the Senate will be a bad thing. The Rs already control the House and pretty much have made a hash out of the governing process by its obstructing so many constructive initiatives.

If the GOP grabs the Senate, we’re looking at the possibility of Capitol Hill actually trying to govern. Recall the 1995 Congress, which turned from fully Democratic control to fully Republican. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, occupied the White House. The speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, turned almost immediately from fire-breathing zealot to someone who actually could deal with the president. He also had the Senate at his back.

Will history repeat itself? The current speaker, John Boehner, seems capable of striking deals — even though he has to say some mean things about the White House to placate the tea party wing of his party. If the Senate flips to GOP control, then we’ll see if the Republican-controlled Capitol Hill can actually produce legislation the president will sign.

Warning No. 1: If you seize control of Capitol Hill, you rascally Republicans, don’t try to toss the Affordable Care Act overboard. The president does have veto authority and you’ll need far more than a simple majority to override a presidential veto. The Supreme Court has upheld the law, which now is working.

Having said all this, I think it is simply wise to see what the voters decide in November.

The current crop of Republicans has shown quite a talent for overplaying its hand — e.g., the on-going ACA repeal circus, not to mention the IRS and Benghazi nonsense.

Although I am prepared for a GOP takeover, I am far from ready to concede it is a done deal.