Tag Archives: George W. Bush

International news, national news, political news

Politics is the roughest of them all

Yes sir. Politics and to an extent public service can be the roughest of the rough jobs on Earth.

You bring someone on board to carry out your policies, they do your bidding and then they return to private life, write a book and then blast those policies to smithereens.

Leon Panetta is the latest former public official to turn on the man who hired him. His criticism of President Obama is drawing praise from Republicans (no surprise, there) and condemnation from Democrats (again, no surprise).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-leon-panetta-and-other-obama-subordinates-stunning-disloyalty/2014/10/06/c4ae4448-4d95-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html

It’s the norm, I suppose.

Panetta, whose dossier is sparkling — former leading member of Congress from California, former White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration, former CIA director, former defense secretary — now says Obama disregarded his advice about leaving a “residual force” of personnel in Iraq. He also says the president misunderstood the threat posed by the Islamic State. He says the president is reluctant to engage his critics.

Yes, he’s written a book.

Is he the first former presidential insider to trash his boss? Hardly. Hillary Clinton has done so. Ditto for Robert Gates. They both are former Obama hands who’ve said unkind thing about him.

George W. Bush got the treatment from former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill; Bill Clinton got ripped by one-time political aide George Stephanopoulos.

Frankly, none of this serves any president well.

Still, there’s something quite unsettling about the latest trashing of Obama by his former defense chiefs and his one-time secretary of state. They come at a time of intense international crisis.

Panetta’s critique is particularly unnerving as the president looks for answers to dealing with ISIL, fighting a deadly disease in West Africa, trying to find peace between Israel and the Palestinians, seeking a solution to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine … and God knows what else is going on around the world.

Why not make these people pledge — in writing — to keep their thoughts to themselves until after the president leaves office? Is that too much to ask?

business news, national news, political news

Silence on job growth is quite telling

That silence you hear from the Republican side of the political divide is quite instructive as the nation digests the latest job-growth numbers.

The Labor Department today reported that 248,000 jobs were added in September and that the jobless rate fell to less than 6 percent for the first time since 2008.

No cheers. No backslapping. No “congrats, you guys” are coming from the GOP gang.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/september-2014-unemployment-numbers-111583.html?hp=l1

Indeed, this morning — just before the jobs figures came out — Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary during the George W. Bush administration, disputed President Obama’s claim the other day that we’re better off now than when he took office in January 2009. Fleischer told Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe” that Obama inherited a “100-foot hole” but still has a “95-foot hole” from which the country must emerge.

What utter bunk!

The economy is growing. Every independent analyst I’ve read suggests the nation has turned the corner from where we were six years ago.

Of course, the task now is to keep marching forward and to keep the momentum going.

Today’s job numbers suggest we’re continuing to make progress.

I get that politics requires muzzles when the “other side” has good news to report. That’s the way the game is played. Democrats do it, too, when the news involved a Republican administration.

Rest assured that if the next job report isn’t as glowing as this one, the loyal opposition will awaken quickly from its silent slumber.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Let's debate this war declaration notion

Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, is quite correct to call attention to whether the United States of America has gone to war under the rules set forth by the U.S. Constitution.

He was speaking this morning on ABC-TV’s “This Week” and said the debate should have commenced 30 years ago.

The Constitution states in Article I, Section 8 that Congress has the power “To declare war.”

There it is. No argument. No qualifier. The power to declare war rests exclusively with Congress.

And yet …

We’ve been to war in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea — am I missing anything? — without Congress voting on a declaration of war.

The discussion this morning comes just as the United States is gathering a coalition of allies to bomb the Islamic State into oblivion as it seeks to destroy what’s been called “an existential threat” to this country. Congress has authorized the training and arming Syrian rebels, but hasn’t yet debated whether to send American aviators into hostile air space to bomb ISIL forces.

That’s warfare, as I understand the meaning of the term.

Shouldn’t we be having this debate? Shouldn’t Congress declare war on ISIL if that is what the commander in chief says is occurring as we seek to “degrade and ultimately destroy” this terrorist cult?

International news, national news, political news

We are not engaging in a religious war

The Values Summit is underway in Washington, D.C., and the usual cavalcade of kooks is drumming up something akin to a religious war.

The international war on terror, they imply strongly, is a war between Christians and Jews against Muslims.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/ted-cruz-values-voter-conference-111363.html?hp=f2

Let’s hold on here.

It is a war pitting civilized human beings against cult followers.

Michelle Bachmann, the lame-duck Minnesota congresswoman, kept harping on what she called “Islamic terrorists.” So did lame-duck Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a roundtable of “experts” who contend that Muslims pose an existential threat to our way of life.

Give me a break.

Another conservative American president, George W. Bush, was quite astute back when this war began immediately after 9/11 to declare that America is not waging war against Islam. He singled out the terrorists who have perverted a great religion to suit their insane political cause. Does anyone remember when President Bush visited a mosque in New York immediately after touring the wreckage of where the World Trade Center stood?

The Islamic State is not a religious organization. It is a cult. It is a cabal of sociopathic murderers who seek to use religion as a pretext to commit heinous acts of terrorism on innocent people.

They are the enemy. The do not represent Islam any more than, say, the crackpots at Westboro Baptist “Church” in Topeka, Kan., represent Christianity.

The task now is to persuade the goofballs on the right to quit trying to make this a religious war.

It is no such thing.

military news, national news, political news

We're worried about presidential salutes?

On a day when the president of the United States delivered an important speech to the United Nations, the mainstream conservative media got all worked up over — what? — a salute the president delivered to a Marine.

He snapped a salute while holding a cup of coffee.

Stop the bleeping presses, will ya?

http://taskandpurpose.com/sorry-presidential-salute-isnt-real-thing/

This is huge!

The presidential salute is a relatively new custom. It began with Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush didn’t return salutes from military ceremonial troops. Bill Clinton did; so did George W. Bush. Barack Obama does it, too. Retired General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower didn’t return salutes when he served as president, either.

There’s nothing written in the social protocol for presidents that requires them to return salutes. They’re civilians who happen to serve as commander in chief.

Yes, it’s good that they return the salute smartly. Presidents with no military experience — e.g., Clinton and Obama — need to be taught how to do it. They’ve learned how to return the salute.

But let’s not get all worked up over a Latte Salute. Let’s recall the strange moment when President Bush tried to return a salute while trying to control a restless dog. (See the picture included in the attached link.)

Let’s also focus on things that really matter.

International news, national news, political news

Obama deserves unified nation

The late great Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan had it right.

Partisanship, he said, should “stop at the water’s edge.”

Put another way: When a president takes a nation to war then it becomes imperative for a nation to rally behind the effort.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obama-un-address-111287.html?hp=l1

President Barack Obama went before the United Nations today to tell the world body that it’s time for the world to step up in the fight against the Islamic State. He didn’t sugar-coat it. He said the fight well could take years. He said ISIL is a tough and resilient foe. He also said that dozens of nations have lined up as part of a growing coalition to fight the terrorists.

But can the commander in chief perform his duty to protect Americans without much of the partisan carping that has plagued him to date? If his Republican foes choose to heed the words of one of their predecessors — the late Sen. Vandenberg — then there might be a unified nation rallying to fight a determined enemy.

Unity, of course, isn’t always the norm.

President Bush was able to rally the nation initially when he took us to war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Much of the support evaporated when he expanded that fight into Iraq in March 2003.

President Clinton had his critics when he started bombing fighters in Bosnia and Kosovo.

President Truman heard the critics when the Korean War dragged on.

And Vietnam? Well, we know what happened there.

Barack Obama received congressional authorization to arm and train Syrian rebels. He’s consulted with political friends and foes in advance of launching the air strikes. Some critics will continue to say the strikes are too little too late.

Let us not undermine this necessary effort to destroy the Islamic State, however, with partisan carping.

national news, political news

DREAM on, Sen. Patrick

Texas Republicans have this problem with Hispanics, who see them as hard-hearted and uncaring about the needs of the state’s fastest-growing demographic group.

The state GOP is trying some outreach to the Hispanic community. Then along comes the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor to say that if he’s elected he’ll work to repeal the DREAM Act for young Texans seeking to enroll at public universities.

Well done, state Sen. Dan Patrick. You just might have shot yourself — and your party — in both feet.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/22/patricks-push-repeal-dream-act-could-face-criticis/

Current state law, the DREAM Act, allows undocumented immigrants to enroll at Texas colleges and universities and pay in-state tuition. This law applies to those who were brought here illegally as children by their parents. They are here because their parents decided to come to Texas to seek a better life.

So the state has allowed them to enroll in public colleges and universities as if they are Texans, which they are, given that they’ve grown up here, come of age here, known only life in Texas.

Dan Patrick says he’ll do away with that, toeing the conservative line so popular among Texas Republicans.

Let’s back up, though, for just a second. Two other prominent Texas conservatives support the DREAM Act. One of them is Gov. Rick Perry, who’s leaving office at the end of the year. The other one is Perry’s predecessor as governor, George W. Bush, who then went on to be elected to two terms as president of the United States.

Perry and Bush get it. They understand what the DREAM Act does for young Texans who want to get an education at a price they can afford.

Patrick doesn’t get it. All he gets is what his party’s “base” keeps shouting in his ear.

The most interesting push back to Patrick’s vow to kill the law comes from a group that has endorsed him, the Texas Association of Business. Its executive director, Bill Hammond, a former legislator from Dallas said this: “We think in-state tuition is a very appropriate response to the fact that we need more Texans going to college and completing college. We choose to disagree with him respectfully on this issue.”

Bill Hammond and the TAB get it, too.

International news, national news, political news

BHO 'ignores' military advice at some risk

Lawrence Korb is far more qualified than I am to discuss the ins and outs of military advice given to presidents of the United States.

He did so during the Reagan administration and he’s now suggesting something quite interesting to the current commander in chief, Barack Obama.

It’s that it’s all right to “ignore” the advice of military leaders at times of international crisis.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/09/why-its-ok-obama-ignore-military-advice/94649/

Korb understands a fundamental truth about U.S. government. Civilians run the military. It’s written into the Constitution and that’s the way it should be.

It’s interesting to me, though, that Korb cites several examples of presidents ignoring the advice of top military leaders:

* Harry Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur after the U.S. military commander popped off and said U.N. forces should take the fight to China.

* Dwight Eisenhower ignored the advice of commanders who wanted the United States to get involved in Vietnam while the French were fighting for their lives at Dien Bien Phu.

* John F. Kennedy said “no” to calls to strike at Cuba during the missile crisis.

What do these presidents have in common? They all were combat veterans.

Barack Obama doesn’t have that kind of background on which to rely. I’m not saying it’s a requirement for the office, but it serves as a cautionary tale for a president who chooses to ignore the advice of individuals who’ve worn their country’s uniform, let alone been to battle.

Sometimes presidents ignore advice at their own risk. Korb writes: “Certainly, there have been instances where presidents had overruled the advice of military leaders, with dire consequences. The most recent examples occurred under President George W. Bush. He not only ignored Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s advice that several hundred thousand ground troops would be needed to remove Saddam Hussein and restore order in Iraq after his removal. Not only was Gen. Shinseki ignored, he was publicly derided and undermined by the president and the secretary of defense when they appointed his successor early, even though Shineski still had a year left in his term. Ironically some of the same people now calling on Obama to listen to his generals and keep the door open to having combat ground troops in Iraq did not speak up for Shinseki. Bush also ignored the advice of his military commanders by diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, before the mission of restoring stability in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda was completed.”

The Constitution grants the president the final say in all military matters. That’s as it should be.

Still, the commander in chief should listen carefully to what the brass has to say. They’ve been there. They understand the consequences of war better than most.

International news, national news, State news

Ho, hum; Texas executes a woman

How times have changed since the late 1990s.

Texas has just executed a female inmate, Lisa Coleman, 38, in the death of a 9-year-old boy she starved to death.

I didn’t even know she was scheduled to die, only learning of her death after the fact.

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/texas-executes-woman-for-starvation-of-boy-9-1

Yep, just another day at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice death chamber.

I couldn’t help but think of the international uproar that arose when Texas put down Karla Faye Tucker back in 1998. Do you remember when then-Gov. George W. Bush mocked Tucker just days before she died when he said, using a pitiful voice, that Tucker likely said, “Pleease don’t kill me.” Oh, that Dubya, .. what a card.

A South Africa TV station called to interview little ol’ me — yours truly — about Tucker’s impending death. They must have run out of more suitable subjects to interview, but there I was — on the air, live, with some reporter in Cape Town, South Africa, offering my own perspective on what it meant to execute a woman.

I’ve kept my feelings about capital punishment pretty much quiet. Only my family and closest friends had known how I feel about it. I more or less had to keep quiet about it, given that I worked for newspapers that supported the use of the death penalty as punishment for capital crimes. Now that I can speak for myself, I have declared my opposition to capital punishment.

It doesn’t upset any more when we execute women. I detest the punishment for men and women equally.

What’s more detestable, though, is that the death of a young woman on a TDCJ execution chamber gurney came and went and so few of us seemed to care.

International news, national news, political news

OK, it's official: We're at war

Is it war or is it a counter-terrorism campaign?

I’d thought out loud in an earlier blog post that the terminology didn’t matter. We’re going after the Islamic State with heavy weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry — who’s been to war … in Vietnam — was reluctant to use that term. Now the commander in chief, Barack Obama, says we’re “at war” with ISIL.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html

Let’s be mindful, though, of what this “war” actually means, or doesn’t mean.

It doesn’t mean we’re going to take over a foreign capital, run up the Stars and Stripes and declare victory. Nor does it mean we’re going to receive surrender papers from a foreign government aboard some warship. It won’t result in our rebuilding (I hope) some nation that we’ve blown to smithereens trying to root out and kill terrorists.

What the “war” means is that we’re going to be in this fight for perhaps well past the foreseeable future. I suspect we’ll still be fighting this “war” when Barack Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017. He’ll hand the battle plans over to his successor, wish that person good luck and then the new commander in chief will be left with trying to kill all the ISIL fighters our military can find.

The war against terrorism is something we launched after 9/11. Everyone in America knew the war wouldn’t have an end date. Heck, there really wasn’t an strategy to conclude the war when President Bush declared it after the terrorists killed thousands of Americans on that terrible Tuesday morning 13 years ago.

I still don’t give a damn what we call this conflict. If it’s war, then we’re going to have to redefine how we know when it’s over.

First, though, we’ll likely have to redefine when it ends. Good luck with that.