ISIS or Yemen? U.S. effort is getting stretched

U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry says the United States is stretched too thin in its war against terrorists.

The Clarendon Republican says U.S. efforts have turned away from Yemen while fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

What to do?

Thornberry: ISIS war leaves fewer resources for Yemen

If I read my congressman’s thoughts correctly, I believe he’s saying we need to spend more money on defense needs. He’s saying it without really, um, saying it.

This conundrum defines pretty clearly to me why this war on terror may never end. You turn away from enemy and another surfaces in another region of the world — not that we’ve really turned away from any of our enemies. Near as I can tell, our forces still are conducting robust strikes and raids on suspected terror targets.

“We don’t have the (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) ISR that we used to have, so when you got to move it to Iraq and Syria, you leave Yemen less covered than it used to be because you have to make choices, and it increases the danger to the country,” he said.

I got that part, Mr. Chairman. So what happens if and when we concentrate on Yemen — a known terrorist breeding ground — and the Islamic State takes further advantage as we look the other way in fighting this on-going anti-terror war?

Do you get where Thornberry is talking about spending more money on defense matters to wage a multi-front war on international terror?

I doubt we can afford it.

According to The Hill: “The administration has implemented a ‘light footprint’ counterterrorism approach in Yemen that relies heavily on drones for surveillance of terrorist threats and for striking targets in the country.”

Here is where the drones can do the same kind of work as manned aircraft. Turn them loose on those suspected targets and deliver enough firepower to send those we don’t kill scurrying for cover.

Therein, though, lies the difficulty in continuing to wage this global anti-terror war. It’s a war like we’ve never fought. President Bush all but declared war on the terrorists after 9/11. It was the right call for the time. President Obama has continued to pursue that war at virtually the same pace as his immediate predecessor.

There are those, though, who insist the Pentagon is being whittled down to dangerous levels. I don’t buy it. We’re still spending hundreds of billions of dollars on new weapons and we’re deploying them throughout these terror hot spots.

I will argue that we still have plenty of assets to deploy against these forces of evil. We just need to fine-tune how we deploy them — and have them deliver maximum punishment.

Rogen seeks to clarify 'Sniper' remark

Seth Rogen’s talent as a comic actor isn’t in question.

His judgment, though, on others’ work is open to discussion, such as his commentary on “American Sniper,” the Clint Eastwood-directed film about the Chris Kyle and his four tours of duty during the Iraq War.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/ap-exclusive-rogen-responds-to-american-sniper-comments/ar-AA8uImD

Rogen likened the film to the third act of “Inglourious Basterds,” the 2009 fantasy about killing Nazis during World War II.

Rogen then compared “Sniper” to a “Nazi propaganda film,” which generated lots of reaction, almost all of it highly critical. It came from conservative media outlets and from those identified with conservative political causes.

Allow me to step in here. I’m an unapologetic lefty and I, too, disliked Rogen’s comments, along with those of filmmaker Michael Moore, who had the bad taste to say that snipers are “cowards.”

Rogen then issued a classic non-apology. He said in a statement: “My comment about the movie was not meant to have any political implications. Any political meaning was ascribed to my comment by news commentary.”

No, young man. There’s no need to tell us what you intended to convey. The message received seemed clear enough. Here’s what you ought to say:

“I messed up badly by speaking thoughtlessly about a film that has touched many Americans deeply. For my carelessness I am deeply sorry.”

Media love "Deflate-gate"

Howard Kurtz, savvy media critique that he is, has posited the theory that the media are hyping up the “scandal” involving deflated footballs and whether the New England Patriots cheated their way into the Super Bowl because, well, it’s good for ratings.

Writing on FoxNews.com, Kurtz wonders precisely why the media have become fixated with this story. The Patriots, after all, clobbered the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC championship game this past weekend. The notion that they purposely deflated footballs to make them more catchable had zero bearing on the outcome of the game, according to Kurtz.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/23/deflate-gate-why-media-are-overinflating-football-flap/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

The media might start concocting conspiracy theories any moment now and might start ascribing all kinds of evil intent on the Patriots.

Kurtz has one idea on what might be driving this media interest. He writes: “Much of the sports media can’t stand Bill Belichick, the Patriots coach. He openly treats reporters with disdain. He’s become a symbol, fairly or unfairly, of sports arrogance and immorality.”

What’s more, as Kurtz says: “At his presser yesterday, Belichick looked nervous, defensive, ticked off to be there, as if he were undergoing a root canal. When he got done with a halting monologue denying any knowledge of ball tampering, he gave one-sentence answers to a few questions and cut it off.

“Every good scandal story needs a villain, and Belichick is it — especially because he was fined $500,000 in the 2007 Spygate incident, where the Pats secretly videotaped the Jets’ defensive coaches’ signals.”

In the grand scheme of serious public policy issues, this one ranks — oh, I don’t know — perhaps nowhere.

But it does involve entertainment celebrities, aka known as highly compensated professional football players.

It’s all too bad. My fear now is that with the Super Bowl now barely more than a week away and with all the pregame hyped planned prior to the game, the media are going to overlook what could be an exciting sporting event between two talented football teams.

Instead, they’ll seek to solve the mystery of, “Who in the hell deflated those footballs?”

 

'Deflate-gate' turns into media monster

How is it that some stories that seem relatively inconsequential at the beginning turn into major headline events and the top subject of every cable news-talk show in America?

Welcome to the era of “Deflate-gate.” Good bleeping grief!

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/12212777/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-says-alter-footballs

New England Patriots head football coach Bill Belichik has issued a oh-so-precise denial of any wrongdoing. He says he did not know of the dozen footballs assigned for his team’s use being tampered with, or know who might have deflated the balls to make them more catchable.

OK. What about the quarterback, Tom Brady? What did he know and when did he know it? Brady says he knows nothing about any funny business prior to — or during — the Patriots’ 45-7 rout of the Indianapolis Colts to win the AFC championship and a trip to the Super Bowl to play the NFC champion Seattle Seahawks. It’s been kind of fun listening to the sports talking heads come up with different analogies to describe how badly the Patriots beat the Colts. “They could have beaten them throwing … ” oh, beach balls, water balloons, Frisbees, whatever.

All these denials, buck-passing and admissions of ignorance are simply fueling speculation that someone — the coach, the QB, the equipment manager, the center, the officiating crew — knows something that they aren’t revealing.

Brady said something Thursday about how much air pressure he prefers to have in the football he throws. No word, yet, about the PSI preferences of Russell Wilson, the Seattle quarterback.

Here’ a thought. Why not simply require the National Football League to inflate every football to precisely the same air pressure, give each team their allotted number of game balls — just before they take the field for their pre-game drills — and tell the players, “All right fellas, here are the balls. Go out there, play your guts out and may be the better team win”?

Do not leave this matter in the hands of the principals who will play the game.

I’m beginning to sense a conspiracy theory in the making, one that will become a monster that will never die. Not ever.

So long, Texas Senate civility

It took Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick no time at all to get his wish as the man who runs the Texas Senate.

The Republican super-majority that now comprises the 31-member legislative body has done away with the two-thirds rule.

As Texas Monthly blogger/editor Paul Burka notes, it signals the end of “adult behavior” in the Legislature’s upper chamber.

Here’s what Burka wrote: “The death of the two-thirds rule was inevitable from the moment that Dan Patrick defeated David Dewhurst in the primary. Patrick has always opposed the rule, even before he became a senator. The Democrats’ reduced strength in the Senate made it all but impossible for the remaining members of their party to muster the ability to fend off the majority (one Democrat, Eddie Lucio Jr., joined the Republicans in the vote).

“I have always been a fan of the two-thirds rule because it gave the minority a fighting chance to take on the majority and it required a level of bridge-building and consensus to pass legislation. On a more basic level, it imposed ‘adult behavior on people who might be otherwise inclined.’ Unfortunately for the Democrats, their party just doesn’t have the numbers to fend off the majority, so Patrick doesn’t have to worry about bridge-building, consensus, or adult behavior as the presiding officer.”

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/end-two-thirds-rule

The only party crossover vote was Lucio, according to Burka, who made no mention of whether Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, crossed over to the other side to preserve the two-thirds rule — which Seliger has said repeatedly that he favors.

I’m guessing Seliger sided with his GOP brethren to show unity among the ranks.

This tradition has lasted through the decades as lieutenant governors of both parties have honored the rule of requiring two-thirds of senators to approve of a bill before sending it to the floor for a vote.

Patrick laid down his marker early in his 2014 campaign by declaring that a simple majority of Republicans ought to be enough to decide the fate of any Senate bill.

Bridge-building between the parties? Who needs it? Lt. Gov. Patrick got his way.

Now the fun can really begin.

 

GOP men vs. GOP women on abortion

The men who run the Republican Party caucus on Capitol Hill are facing a determined foe.

They happen to be the women who comprise the rank and file of GOP legislators.

The battleground? It’s abortion. Men of the GOP? You’re in for a fight.

You go, ladies.

Abortion dissenters face backlash

Female Republican House members are rising up against anti-abortion legislation that would stop abortions at the 20-week mark of a pregnancy. The legislation contains language about rape and suggests that even women who become pregnant as a result of a savage sexual assault must carry the pregnancy to full term. The provision in the bill required that women who are raped had to report the incident to police to be exempted from the 20-week rule. Some Republican moderate women said as many as 70 percent of rapes go unreported by women.

This is what happens when men — who know not a single thing about some of these intensely personal issues — make laws affecting women.

Congress intended to pass this legislation out on the 42nd anniversary of the historic Roe vs. Wade decision in the Supreme Court that stated the Constitution protects a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.

Conservatives are angry over the GOP moderates’ torpedoing of the legislation. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, said the women will be “held accountable.”

Baloney.

They’ve acted responsibly and their voices need to be heard on this issue that only they understand.

 

Public integrity takes hit from veto

Rick Perry won’t acknowledge this, of course, but I’ll say it anyway.

The former Texas governor’s veto of money for the Public Integrity Unit has stripped that office’s ability to do its job on behalf of Texans interested in preserving an ethical state government.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/17/report-prosecutors-dropped-probe-after-perry-veto/

The Public Integrity Unit has been the subject of much controversy ever since Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s arrest on drunken driving charges, to which she pleaded guilty. Perry then entered the fray and sought her resignation. If she didn’t quit, he said he’d veto $7.5 million appropriated for the office. Lehmberg didn’t quit; Perry vetoed the money.

Now we find out that the office didn’t have the fund to pursue some important ethical investigations.

Thanks a lot, governor.

The PIU was going to examine some contract issues with the Department of Public Safety. No can do now, given the absence of money.

The Legislature now is likely to consider referring a constitutional amendment to voters this year that would call for placing the PIU in the hands of the Texas Attorney General’s Office, and removing it from the Travis County DA’s office.

I’m not at all sure that would be an improvement. Both offices are run by partisan politicians; Lehmberg is a Democrat, Attorney General Ken Paxton is a Republican. GOP officeholders long have accused Lehmberg of targeting Republicans; meanwhile, look for Democrats to make the same accusation in reverse if the office transfers to the AG’s authority.

The veto has rippled its way across the political landscape. A grand jury indicted Perry on abuse of power and coercion. The case has yet to be settled.

Still, the damage was done.

The Public Integrity Unit’s pursuit of ethical complaints has been derailed.

Thanks for nothing, Gov. Perry.

 

 

Paying tribute to Bush 41

Lanny Davis and I have something in common.

We’re both reading the same book, “41,” the biography of the 41st president of the United States written by his son, the 43rd president of the United States.

http://thehill.com/opinion/lanny-davis/230351-lanny-davis-bush-41-and-the-credit-he-is-due

Davis is a much bigger hitter than I am. He once served as special White House counsel in the Clinton administration. However, he and I share the same respect for the 41st president, George H.W. Bush.

Davis perhaps has finished reading his copy of “41,” the volume written by former President George W. Bush. I’m still in the middle of it. I’m enjoying it immensely.

“W” makes no apologies about this book. He calls it a “love story” written to and about the man he admires most. Davis shares George W.’s affection for the elder Bush.

Davis writes in The Hill: “To me, the most important — and perhaps least generally recognized — is Bush 41’s role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.”

Indeed, President Bush didn’t spike the ball, so to speak, when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, nor did he do a victory jig in the Oval Office when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. He chose to mark those dates quietly. Indeed, he barely said a thing when both events occurred.

Davis recounts how Bush 43 writes that congressional Democrats urged Bush 41 to go to Berlin when the wall came down.

Then the Evil Empire dissolved. When it did, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sent Bush 41 a “thank you” note. Davis writes: “Gorbachev had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, a year after the Berlin Wall had fallen peacefully. Perhaps if the Nobel Peace Prize Committee had known at the time about Bush 41’s crucial but virtually invisible role helping Gorbachev reach this result with dignity, he would have shared that prize.”

Bush 41 is ailing these days. He isn’t quite so vibrant, even though he jumped out of an airplane on his 90th birthday.

His humility — one of his most endearing personal traits — shows through in the story written by his son.

Davis believes — as I do — that historians will rank Bush 41’s presidency as a consequential time in our history: “I believe that some day, history will judge this humble, self-effacing man as one of America’s most important presidents, if for no other reason than he helped achieve, as his son wrote, ‘one of the most stunning diplomatic achievements in history: a peaceful end to the Cold War.’”

 

Abortion bill: a non-starter

Let’s just put this one on ice: Abortion is not going to be one of those issues where the White House and Congress are going to compromise.

President Obama will veto House Resolution 36 if it ever gets to his desk.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get there.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-threatens-to-veto-new-gop-abortion-bill-20150120

The bill, cobbled together by Republicans who themselves are split on this issue, would prohibit abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.

Yep. That’s it.

Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether to end a pregnancy. Or that most Americans favor granting women the opportunity to decide such matters. Thus, abortion remains legal. The rate of abortion also happens to be declining.

None of that matters. Republicans who control Congress say two things: They oppose government “interference” but they demand that government interfere in this most personal and intensely emotional decision possible.

The National Journal reports: “Republicans themselves are divided on the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. At last week’s GOP retreat, Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., called on House leadership not to bring up the bill this week, saying that the caucus needs ‘to be smart about how we’re moving forward.'”

It’s not smart to approve a bill they know will get a veto and which will not be overridden. It’s also not smart to tell a woman that she must take a pregnancy to full term. That is her call to make — exclusively.

 

 

 

Iran returns to center stage

Iran never recedes too far away from Americans’ awareness.

It returned once again this week during President Obama’s State of the Union speech and the next day when House Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress in February.

Netanyahu will talk about Iran.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-netanyahu-no-meeting-dc-visit-114494.html?hp=r1_4

Obama doesn’t want to impose new sanctions on Iran while negotiations are ongoing to rid the nation of its nuclear program. Congressional Republicans, along with Netanyahu, want to impose sanctions.

What does all this have to do with anything?

Israel has declared that it is keeping open the option of a military strike against Iran if the Iranians proceed with nuclear development and — it is believed by almost everyone on the planet — creation of a nuclear weapon.

Israel has a right to defend itself, given that Iran has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the map. If you’re Netanyahu, you keep the military option open, as you must.

I am just hoping that Netanyahu picks his words carefully when he speaks to members of Congress. Granted, he doesn’t think much of the effort to negotiate a settlement that removes Iran’s nuclear program. I’m not sure I’d think much of it either if I lived in a country that faces the constant threat of all-out war from a despotic regime.

But the picture is even more complicated, given these negotiations and the possibility that they well might produce a non-nuclear Iran.

This is a treacherous gambit that Speaker Boehner is playing by inviting Benjamin Netanyahu to make an important speech to Congress. Be very careful, Mr. Speaker. And you, too, Mr. Prime Minister.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience