Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Syria should present unifying threat

Suppose the president of the United States orders aerial strikes against Syria.

And suppose those strikes involve manned aircraft, piloted by young American servicemen and women who are thrust into harm’s way by their commander in chief’s order.

What will be our national response? Are we going to rally behind our commander in chief or will we second-guess, armchair quarterback and be openly critical — if not hostile — toward those who issue the order?

I’m hoping for a unifying effect.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130827-editorial-time-for-consequences-in-syria.ece

President Obama is weighing his options carefully. He’s meeting with congressional leaders, the very folks who insist that the president consult with them before taking action. He’s calling allies around the world, enlisting others to join in a coalition to strike against Syria, which used chemical weapons against its own people. Secretary of State John Kerry called it a “moral outrage,” and no national leader anywhere with a conscience can — or should — condone such an act.

It’s not yet clear whether we’re going to become involved in an all-out shooting war in Syria. Obama’s stated mission would be to punish the Syrians for violating a widely accepted tenet of international behavior. The use of chemical weapons crosses that so-called “red line” the president said exists in that conflict.

The late U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-Mich., once said that partisan disagreements must stop “at the water’s edge.” Will we heed the wise man’s words?

Uncategorized

‘Regime change’ is hidden strategy

The columnist Charles Krauthammer says any attack on Syria would be a “pointless exercise” if it’s not about “regime change.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/27/krauthammer_pointless_exercise_if_attack_on_syria_isnt_about_regime_change.html

White House press guru Jay Carney says regime change isn’t on the agenda if U.S. forces attack Syrian military installations in retaliation for the chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians.

It’s all very interesting. Let me walk us back 20-plus years.

In August 1990, the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sent troops into Kuwait to invade and occupy that country. He took Kuwait’s vast oil supply hostage, threatening to cut off supply lines to countries such as the United States.

President George H.W. Bush said immediately the invasion “will not stand.” So he put together a coalition of nations, obtained United Nations approval to strike back at Iraq, then got the Congress to go along with it. The president stated over and over that the aim of any planned response would be to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and nothing more.

A force of more than 500,000 troops, commanded by U.S. Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, stood ready to attack.

Then came the first shot of the war, on Jan. 17, 1991. It was a Tomahawk cruise missile launched by the battleship USS Wisconsin. Where did this missile score a direct hit? On the presidential palace in Baghdad.

Had the missile strike killed Saddam Hussein, there would have been a regime change, correct?

No one should be surprised, therefore, if an attack on Syria doesn’t start with a similar targeting strategy.

Uncategorized

Why doesn’t POTUS come here?

A headline in the National Journal online edition asks: Why won’t Obama visit North Dakota?

It’s a valid question, given the oil boom that’s changing North Dakota and beginning to change the nation’s energy strategy.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/why-won-t-obama-visit-north-dakota-20130825

But I can answer the question posed by the headline and the article written by the Journal’s Amy Harder. He won’t go there for the same reason he doesn’t come to West Texas. There’s no political advantage for the president.

What’s more, West Texas is resuming its own energy boom, in the Permian Basin, not to mention the growth of the wind-energy industry throughout the Panhandle.

Presidents, though, are the supreme political animals. Democratic presidents quite often don’t bother coming to regions of the country where they lack popular support. That would be, um, West Texas and North Dakota.

Conversely, do Republican presidents spend a lot of time visiting places such as, say, the Bay Area of California, or Boston, or the Pacific Northwest? Hardly.

Frankly, I think quite a few West Texans — not to mention North Dakotans — would appreciate a presidential visit to talk up the industries that are fueling our manufacturing might and keeping our vehicles on the road.

And I also believe a Democratic president could get a warm welcome here. Do you remember the reception another very high-profile Democrat — one William Jefferson Clinton — got when he came to Amarillo in 2008 to campaign for his wife, then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, as she sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination? The Civic Center’s Grand Plaza Ballroom was packed beyond capacity.

The nation’s energy future is, indeed, changing, as the National Journal article points out.

A presidential visit would be a welcome event to call attention to the hard work that’s under way out here in Flyover Country.

Uncategorized

No regime change? Yeah … right

White House press secretary Jay Carney says “regime change” would not be a goal if the United States were to launch a military strike against Bashar al Assad’s forces in Syria.

But if it happens, do you think the White House high command would mope over the outcome? Not for a minute.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/318989-white-house-were-not-after-regime-change-in-syria

The Obama administration is clearly outraged over Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its people in the bloody civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people. Secretary of State John Kerry calls it a moral outrage. President Obama says use of the weapons crosses a “bright line” that separates diplomacy from military action.

The administration is consulting with congressional leaders now to assure them of its plans. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said today the military is ready to go if and when the order comes from the commander in chief.

Syria needs to be punished badly for this vicious attack on its own citizens, including children. The videos of Syrian children writhing in agony is almost too difficult to watch.

But if a military response is strong enough to bring about Assad’s downfall, then so be it.

Then comes an even more dire concern: Who will replace him?

Uncategorized

Syria attack seems more likely

Today’s question is this: Should the United States launch airstrikes against Syria in retaliation for dictator Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons on civilians?

Yes, but only after crossing every “T” and dotting every “I.”

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says U.S. airstrikes will be done only with broad international support. He should add that the Obama administration would be wise to get congressional authorization.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/318703-hagel-us-will-only-take-action-in-syria-with-international-support

President Obama laid down a serious marker earlier this year when he said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would be a “bright line” that Syrian officials must not cross. It’s now all but certain they’ve crossed it, killing many civilians, including children.

Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country stands behind Syria and threatens serious consequences if the United States and/or its allies launches airstrikes.

Let’s be clear: He isn’t going to attack the United States if we order the airstrikes. As for consequences, well, our relations with the Russians already are in the Dumpster.

I would hope congressional Republicans can see their way clear to back the commander in chief if he commits air power to punishing the Syrians. I am like many millions of Americans, though, who do not want to see American troops on the ground in Damascus fighting beside the rebels — who may or may not be our friends.

Syrian military leaders need to pay a hefty price for crossing that bright line. If the United States can rally its allies behind an effort to hit them hard from the air — and if Congress goes along with it — I think it’s an act worth taking.

However, it has to be effective and it must be able to cripple the Syrians’ ability to commit such atrocities in the future.

Uncategorized

‘Birther’ issue won’t go away

Try as they will, my Republican friends cannot seem to shake themselves loose from the “birther” nonsense that dogged President Obama during his first term and disappeared the moment he was re-elected in November 2012.

Why do they want to get rid of this issue? Because one of their own is facing some of the same questions that hounded President Obama.

The Texas Tribune is reporting that Canada native Ted Cruz, the junior U.S. Republican senator from Texas, is fielding questions about his own eligibility to run for president — were he to decide to make the race in 2016. Cruz has been staging meetings back home in Texas during the congressional recess.

Cruz says — and his GOP faithful agree — that even though he isn’t a “natural born” U.S. citizen, he would qualify because his mother is an American. Thus, he is qualified automatically because of his parentage.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/23/cruzs-supporters-dont-question-eligibility/

That’s good enough for those who want him to run.

But given that political memories at times can be everlasting, it’s not necessarily good enough for those on the left who remember the torment their guy endured during his first presidential term.

Let me add that there is an important difference between Barack Obama and Ted Cruz: Obama actually was born in the United States of America; Cruz was born north of our border. Obama produced a birth certificate that proved his place of birth, while Cruz also has produced a document that shows he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father.

Obama’s birth certificate hasn’t been accepted fully by every American with an interest in government. Some right-wing nut cases with loud voices (e.g., “The Donald” Trump) still question the document’s authenticity. No sense arguing with them about that.

Personally, I accept the notion that Cruz is eligible to run. I welcome his candidacy. I am on the verge of begging him to run for the presidency in ’16. I don’t want him to become the 45th president of the United States, but he would be bring some serious sizzle to a campaign that’s already shaping up to be a barn-burner.

Cruz would have to battle the lingering birther baloney. Maybe he can ask the 44th president for some tips on how to survive the onslaught.

Uncategorized

GOP sets new impeachment standard

I have concluded something sad about today’s Republican Party: It has reset the standard for impeaching the president of the United States.

Some GOP members of Congress are so intent on impeaching President Obama that at least one of them admits to having dreams about it. For what reason? What precisely are the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the president committed that warrant such a drastic act? They aren’t saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/politics/ignoring-qualms-some-republicans-nurture-dreams-of-impeaching-obama.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Suffice to say that it appears — to me, at least — that Republicans, led by the tea party wing of their party, have decided impeachment is one way to get rid of a guy they dislike, whose policies they detest.

It has gotten me to thinking about whether this new standard would have come into play during previous recent administrations. Was it plausible, therefore, to impeach:

* President Ford, for issuing a summary pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for any crimes he might have committed against the nation?

* President Carter, on whose watch the Iranian hostage rescue mission went so horribly wrong, causing the president and his national security team tremendous heartache?

* President Reagan, who misled the nation during the Iran-Contra crisis, which resulted in arms sales to the Contras in Central America while negotiations were underway with the rogue Iranian government that was holding seven American hostages?

* President George H.W. Bush, who promised never to raise taxes as long as he was president, and who then reneged on that solemn pledge?

* President George W. Bush, whose national security team — along with much of the rest of the world — sold Americans a bill of goods that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had a huge cache of chemical weapons? Turns out, after we invaded Iraq in March 2003, there were no such weapons — anywhere.

The answer to all of those, of course, is “no.”

You’ll notice, naturally, that I didn’t include President Clinton in that roster of past leaders. The House did impeach Clinton … for having an affair with a White House intern and then lying to a federal grand jury about it. In my view, the GOP set a pretty low standard for impeachment then as well. The Senate then tried Clinton, but acquitted him.

Are we heading back down that path now, with Republicans simply drooling over the possibility of impeaching a president?

They’re going to have to come up with a whole lot more than they’ve presented to date as reasons to do such a thing. And to date, they’ve produced nothing.

Uncategorized

Impeachment is near? He must be delusional

What in the name of all that is holy is U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., talking about?

Coburn said this week that the U.S. House of Representatives may be close to impeaching President Obama. The president’s policies, said Coburn, have moved him close to the legal requirements needed for impeachment.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/22/coburn-obama-a-friend-but-his-actions-nearing-grounds-for-impeachment/

As has been the case with some of the lunacy spouted by Republican members of Congress on this subject, Coburn offered no specific allegation — let alone evidence — of any “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the Obama administration has committed.

Perhaps just as strange as the impeachment talk has become is the source of the latest mutterings, from Tom Coburn, who calls himself a “personal friend” of the president. Indeed, I recall learning once that when Barack Obama entered the Senate in 2005, the grizzled veteran of the place — Sen. Coburn — took him under his wing and showed him the ropes.

Now this kind of talk?

Impeachment never — not ever — should become a political blood sport. And yet the open talk of this activity is emanating from the fruitcake wing of the Republican majority in the House of Reps. One GOP lawmaker, Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, recently declared that a House vote to impeach the president of the United States would be a “dream come true.”

What utter crap.

Uncategorized

Stupidity alive and well in U.S. House

U.S. Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., is saying some remarkably stupid things.

The brand new congressman — elected in 2012 in a special election — said he’s asked lawyers “how can I impeach the president.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/kerry-bentivolio-president-obama-impeachment-95739.html?ml=la

Bentivolio told a town hall gathering of local Republicans that the president has committed an unspecified crime likely related to the IRS controversy or the Benghazi tragedy. He’s not laying out any specifics, but says he wants badly to impeach President Obama.

This kind of idiocy from lawmakers elected with an agenda that has nothing to do with helping their constituents makes me sick. I used to think serving in Congress was an honorable calling. Some folks still see it that way — and I include members of both parties in that category.

Lately, though, we’re moronic statements from the likes of Kerry Bentivolio — and let me throw in comments made recently by Republican U.S. Reps. Steve Stockman and Blake Farenthold of good ol’ Texas — who are tossing the “I-word” out as an applause line in front of their fervently faithful followers.

These clowns are a disgrace to an institution that can ill-afford this kind of ridicule.

Uncategorized

How ’bout them ’72 Dolphins?

It’s a little late, but it ought to be welcome nevertheless.

President Obama is bringing one of the NFL’s most storied teams to the White House for a decidedly belated congratulatory visit. The 1972 Miami Dolphins are coming to town to be honored in a ceremony that should have occurred oh, about four decades ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/20/obama_to_give_72_dolphins_a_belated_salute_119645.html

The president at the time of the Dolphins’ historic season — in which they went 17-0, capping it off with a 14-7 win in the Super Bowl over the Washington Redskins — was Richard Nixon. He was vacationing in Florida and professed to be a Dolphins fan. He also had told Redskins coach George Allen that he was rooting for them to win the big game.

One other thing might have kept the president from inviting the Dolphins to the White House. Nixon was fresh off his smashing 1972 re-election victory, but was facing increasing scrutiny over the “third-rate burglary” that occurred the previous June at the Watergate Hotel.

President Nixon had other things on his mind, I reckon, and couldn’t be bothered with saluting the Miami Dolphins’ history-making season.

Barack Obama also is a big sports fan and isn’t bashful about bringing in sports teams or individual athletes to be honored.

I’m quite happy to see him honor the Dolphins. Forty years is a little late, but I’m sure this band of aging former athletes and coaches will enjoy the spotlight once again.