Tag Archives: 9/11

As if it could get any crazier in the Middle East

BBt5f5f

So … you might be asking: How complicated can it get in the Middle East?

Here’s a thought: Al-Qaeda could become something of an “ally” of ours if the terror organization decides to train its guns on another terror organization.

You remember those guys, right? They flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and launched the current Global War on Terror. We hunted down Osama bin Laden and killed his sorry backside in Pakistan. We’ve been fighting al-Qaeda ever since.

Now we have the Islamic State to contend with. We’ve been taking those monstrous terrorists as well.

Now comes word that al-Qaeda might decide to go after the Islamic State in Syria.

Which of these terror cabals poses the greatest threat to the United States and our allies? Do we take sides?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/al-qaeda-turns-to-syria-with-a-plan-to-challenge-isis/ar-BBt5p8n?li=BBnbcA1

Here’s a thought. Maybe we ought to just let al-Qaeda do what reports indicate it intends to do. The Shiite terror group might have determined that ISIL — the Sunni monsters — pose a grave threat to them.

The report attached to this blog post suggests al-Qaeda might seek to “compete” with ISIL for supremacy in the dark world of Middle East terrorists. What about, oh, Hezbollah and Hamas? Why not “compete” against them as well?

Of course we’re not going to take sides. Nor should we.

My own hope is that “compete” actually means to “fight,” which means one terror group is going to kill members of the other terror group.

If that’s what transpires, then let ’em fight.

 

Hillary finds a worthwhile task for Bill

clintonbillclintonhillary_072815getty

I have been waiting to hear this bit of news. I’ve been curious about what might lie ahead for the next presidential spouse.

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’s got a job for her husband if she’s elected the next president of the United States this November.

She intends to put the 42nd president in charge of “revitalizing the economy.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279973-bill-clinton-could-have-economic-role-under-wifes

Bill Clinton presided over an economic revival during his time as president. From 1993 until 2001, President Clinton — working with a Congress controlled by men and women who belonged to the other party — did what once was deemed impossible. The government reached a balanced federal budget. Indeed, it operated with a substantial surplus by the time Bill Clinton’s two terms had come to an end.

If there is one singular positive legacy from the Bill Clinton presidency, it is that the nation enjoyed tremendous economic health.

It came unraveled not long after Bill Clinton left office. Terrorists hit us hard, we went to war, the new president — George W. Bush — didn’t propose a way to pay for that struggle. The deficit ballooned.

Now, with another election coming on quickly, the former president is poised to give the next president a constructive hand in shoring up the economic recovery that most observers say remains unsteady.

“He’s got more ideas a minute than anybody I know,” Clinton said of her husband.

Great. Let’s put them to work.

Oh wait. First, Hillary Clinton’s got to get elected.

 

No, Ivanka … Dad hasn’t ‘elevated’ the debate

trump_050316getty

Ivanka Trump’s love for her father is a beautiful thing to see.

Most of the time.

It becomes a bit less beautiful when she says things about the “contribution” dear ol’ Dad has made to the level of discourse in this year’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Donald J. Trump — Ivanka’s father — has “elevated (the debate) — he’s created dialogue around issues. It’s a powerful thing,” she said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279838-ivanka-trump-my-father-has-elevated-the-dialogue

I don’t believe that’s the case.

Trump has come under intense criticism from leaders in both major political parties for, let’s see, doing the precise opposite of what Ivanka Trump says he has done.

He has lowered the level of discourse. He has taken it to depths not seen in at least two generations.

Daddy Trump’s insults of other candidates have topped the charts.

He has ridiculed other candidates’ physical appearance, their eating habits, their level of “energy.” He has hurtful things about a journalist’s physical disability. Trump has said amazingly crass things about the alleged reasons another journalist asked him tough and pointed questions at a televised debate.

Ivanka Trump also disregards the lies Trump has told all along the way as he moves closer to becoming the Republican Party’s presidential nominee.

One stands out: Donald Trump said he watched “thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. He’s also said the Mexican government is sending rapists, drug dealers and murderers to commit mayhem and misery on this side of the countries’ common border.

This is how his daughter — by all accounts an accomplished young woman — describes as “elevating” the level of discourse during the campaign for president.

She said her father is “honest.” He says what’s on his mind at the moment, Ivanka said.

There’s something to be said — although I don’t know what that would be — for that brand of “honesty.” Let us not, though, suggest that it elevates the quality of what has passed so far for political debate.

 

 

No singing at memorial? Oh, please!

ax223-248f-9jpg-a569f38ac4ed1057

An overzealous security guard at the 9/11 memorial and museum in New York City deserves a serious reprimand by the New York Port Authority that employs him.

The guard told a North Carolina middle school class to stop singing — here it comes — the National Anthem at the memorial.

It seems that singing isn’t allowed at this sacred site without someone or some group paying for a special permit to do so.

To which I would add: what pure baloney!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/nyregion/guard-stops-students-from-singing-national-anthem-at-9-11-memorial.html

The museum staff has issued an apology to the students and their adult chaperones. It said the guard acted inappropriately.

Gee, do you think?

Perhaps the most stunning element of this story might be the reaction from the teachers. They said they viewed the incident as something of a teaching experience for the children. It taught them to “respect authority,” according to the New York Times.

I give huge credit for the teachers for their restraint and their respect for the authority of the guards.

However, it wasn’t as if the kids were singing some kind of raunchy rock song or a ’60s protest song that criticized the federal government.

The students sought to honor the nation with their rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.

It seems the museum brass ought to rethink the rules it has set out. Some clarity at the very least is in order, given that the teachers who led the students were told it would be OK to sing the anthem.

Whatever the outcome, the 9/11 museum and the Port Authority deserve the criticism that is coming their way.

 

Please, no conspiracy theories about rally violence

Donald-Trump_3372655b

Donald J. Trump says Bernie Sanders has planted protesters at rallies to stir things up and provoke violence.

Sanders denies it categorically.

Now a Florida congressman — a Trump supporter — says Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign is guilty of prodding the Trumpsters into striking back at the protesters.

No word yet from the Clinton campaign; I’m quite sure there’ll be a categorical denial there, too.

Conspiracy theories have this way of never dying. JFK assassination? Area 51 cover-up? 9/11?

It might be that long after this campaign has ended, we’ll hear conspiracy theories kicked around about who started the violence at the Trump rallies as the candidate stumps for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

Here’s my theory.

Trump started it by inflaming his crowds from the podium.

Punch people in the face? Beat the “crap” out of someone? Offer to pay legal fees for those charged with crimes?

The candidate is inciting the violence and that — all by itself — is what gives this story its staying power.

I get that violence has occurred over many decades. The 1968 Democratic National Convention provoked a full-scale series of street riots in Chicago. Police vs. Protesters turned into the stuff of hideous, actual “reality TV” for those of us who watched it unfold.

It spilled onto the convention floor. Security personnel beat up delegates and media reporters.

Do you recall hearing pols exhorting protesters from the stage? Neither do I.

Yes, this campaign is vastly different.

It has brought the level of political campaigning to a level not seen by anyone, near as I can tell.

It’s also prompted the goofballs among us to suggest that it’s all being orchestrated by mysterious evil political opponents.

It’s not so complicated. The violence is a result of a candidate fomenting the anger expressed by those who support his bid for the presidency, which has dared those who oppose him to respond with protests.

Why in the name of sanity — and decency — can’t Donald J. Trump start delivering a positive message of change?

I hope it isn’t too late.

 

No, Mr. Trump, ‘Islam’ doesn’t hate us

islam-at-war

Islam hates America?

That’s what Republican Party presidential campaign frontrunner Donald J. Trump has asserted in his latest broadside against nearly 2 billion of the world’s residents.

No sir. You are wrong!

Trump’s assertion goes far afield from what we know.

It is that a radical portion of the Islamic religion has perverted the doctrine espoused by a great religion. They are not true Muslims. They are cultists. They are murderers. They are religious perverts.

The men who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon on 9/11 were not God-fearing Muslims. They were murderers, pure and simple.

Sure, these individuals hate Americans. They also hate Europeans. Moreover, they also hate fellow Muslims.

Let us realize that the largest number of casualties who’ve been injured and killed by terror attacks around the world are Muslims.

Trump’s false assertion became a brief talking point tonight at the Republican debate in Miami. Sen. Marco Rubio challenged Trump by suggesting that the reality TV celebrity is wrong to suggest that hatred for America is somehow codified in the Quran.

It’s not.

Donald Trump cannot be allowed to get away with this continued fear- and hate-mongering along the presidential campaign trail.

 

Childers finally says he’s sorry for 911 misstep

7cc82baf-9b40-478f-ad1b-4bb3c4fdb38e-9112

Amarillo interim City Manager Terry Childers has re-thought what he said earlier this week.

He said initially in public that he regrets the manner in which a 911 call turned out.

Now he says he’s “sorry.” He’s issued an apology. In public. Out loud. To the city he administers.

There. Now, can we put this matter to rest?

This story needs to quiet down.

Amarillo has been through too much turmoil in the past year.

A new City Council majority promised “change.” It brought it. City Manager Jarrett Atkinson quit, as did other senior city staff.

The council brought in Childers, the former Oklahoma City manager, to steady the city’s administrative ship.

Then came the 911 call to the Amarillo Emergency Communication Center. He got agitated over the way the dispatcher responded to his report of a missing briefcase.

There’s been plenty of criticism being tossed around the city at the interim manager. I’ve heard rumblings that some of it has been quite ugly, although I have not seen or read any of it with my own eyes.

OK. He’s now said he’s sorry, which I guess lies near the heart of what concerned some residents.

Let’s hope this matter can be put to rest, that the interim manager can continue his work running the city and that the council can proceed with its search for a permanent chief administrator.

 

City manager steps in it

7cc82baf-9b40-478f-ad1b-4bb3c4fdb38e-9112

My trick knee is throbbing once again.

It’s not the weather that’s causing the throb. It’s this nagging sense that Amarillo’s interim city manager has stepped into a proverbial pile of … well, something unpleasant.

Terry Childers placed more than one phone call to the city’s 911 call center to report — get ready! — a lost briefcase. He became agitated at the way the dispatcher handled his call. She wasn’t prompt enough, I guess, or didn’t see the urgency that Childers apparently saw.

He wanted cops sent “immediately” to the hotel from where he reported the missing item. He said he wanted the place “shut down.” He told the dispatcher she “didn’t know” with whom she was dealing.

All in all, it sounds to my ears — and I listened to one of the calls — that Childers overreacted badly.

The brief case, by the way, was recovered. No harm no foul.

But wait. The interim manager got some changes at the call center. Cops and firefighters are now on duty at the site to work alongside the personnel already on duty. Police Chief Robert Taylor said the changes will improve the operation and that he had heard complaints from residents about the call center’s operation. Well, that’s news to me … and perhaps to many others.

This all sounds like the activity that begins with the word “cluster.”

So, what now?

The city is supposed to be looking for a permanent city manager. Childers will return to Oklahoma City when the new person signs on the dotted line.

My trick knee is telling me as well that the City Council — which makes precisely one hiring decision, according to the city charter — ought to fast-track its search for a permanent manager.

 

Changes come to 911 call center

12596555

Amarillo put a lot of effort — and money — into modernizing and streamlining its emergency services response center.

City officials touted it as more efficient and customer-friendly. The city remodeled and outfitted an existing downtown office complex and then launched the center that combines police, fire and medical services calls.

Then the city’s interim city manager, Terry Childers, placed a call to the center the other day to report a stolen brief case from the hotel where he was staying after returning to Amarillo on a flight from Dallas. The dispatcher responded according to a set protocol that requires her to ask a set of questions. Childers became agitated and told the dispatcher that she didn’t “know who she is dealing with”; he made that assertion even after introducing himself to the dispatcher as the city manager, which the dispatcher seemed to understand clearly.

The city has initiated some changes in the dispatch center operations. It now assigns police officers and firefighters to help oversee phone center operations. It’s no longer a civilian-only operation.

This is all fine.

But I’m wondering: Was there a serious concern among the community about response times? Has the problem — if one existed — been festering since the call center opened? Or are these changes the result of a single phone call by one highly placed individual?

I’ve listened to the audio recording of Childers’ phone call. To my ears, it sounded as though the dispatcher acted with cool professionalism. I understand that the police did arrive in a timely fashion, although I’m not sure that the cops “shut down” the hotel to search for Childers’ missing brief case, as Childers had demanded.

I hope for all the world that we aren’t witnessing an abuse of authority.

Perhaps the city should conduct a thorough public airing of the complaints and concerns that allegedly have arisen from the new dispatch center. Is there a record of gripes from citizens? If there is, do those complaints rise to a level that compels a change in the way the city responds to these emergencies?

Let’s hear it. All of it.

 

Why all this fuss over Gitmo?

Detainees in orange jumpsuits sit in a holding area under the watchful eyes of military police during in-processing to the temporary detention facility at Camp X-Ray of Naval Base Guantanamo Bay in this January 11, 2002 file photograph. A cache of classified U.S. military documents provides intelligence assessments on nearly all of the 779 people who been detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The secret documents, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, reveal that most of the 172 remaining prisoners have been rated as a "high risk" of posing a threat to the United States and its allies if released without adequate rehabilitation and supervision, the newspaper said in its report late on April 24, 2011.  REUTERS/Stringer/Files (CUBA - Tags: CRIME LAW POLITICS) - RTXL0IH

I’ll admit that I’m very late in this discussion, but here goes anyway.

Guantanamo Bay — aka Gitmo — has been the subject of a lot of political discussion since it began housing terror suspects after the 9/11 attacks.

I’ve listened to the back-and-forth on all these years and am left to ponder: Why has this effort been so contentious?

President Obama said today he’s going to “change course” and move to close the detention center on the U.S. Navy base in Cuba before he leaves office. He wants to relocate the detainees to the United States.

It’s not that I fear bringing them here. They are being kept under serious lockdown at Gitmo. It’s safe to presume that whatever federal lockup gets them that they will be treated with the same seriousness.

Again, why the consternation over their detention at the military site?

The 9/11 attacks provoked a ferocious initial response from the U.S. military. It embarked on a mission to kill and/or capture as many terrorists as it could. Those who were captured were brought to Gitmo, which existed long before the terrorist attacks on D.C. and New York City.

There reportedly were abuses of prisoners at Gitmo. However, does the location of the alleged abuses matter? What if they had occurred at, say, Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where the military operates another hard-time lockup for military prisoners?

The suggestions by some foes of closing Gitmo that bringing them to the United States somehow puts Americans at increased risk doesn’t wash.

Still, the suggestions that we must close Gitmo because it somehow doesn’t comport with “American values” is equally nonsensical.

The individuals housed at Gitmo are seriously dangerous criminals who’ve been accused of committing acts of war against the United States of America. Whether they’re locked up at the island detention center or somewhere on U.S. soil doesn’t seem to matter one little bit.

Our Navy base is as secure as any of our installations.

Therefore, now that I’m awakened — finally — to this critical issue, someone will have to explain to me why it became so critical in the first place.