Tag Archives: White House

International news

Lighten up on the formality thing

Michael Strain needs to relax a little, maybe meet some folks and get on a first-name basis with them.

Strain is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and has written an essay for the Washington Post in which he express disgust that President Obama referred to German Chancellor Angela Merkel several times by her first name. It occurred during a joint press conference.

Strain was aghast at what he calls “false intimacy.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/18/please-address-me-as-mister-i-insist/?tid=sm_fb

Holy mackerel, Mike! Get a grip.

I’ll call him Mike, even though I don’t know the fellow. What’s he going to do in the remote chance he reads this? Will he come unglued the way he did over Barack’s faux familiarity with Angela?

I doubt it.

These kinds of exchanges don’t bother me. As a friend of mine, Dan, noted on a Facebook post, it might not have bothered Mike when President Bush rubbed Chancellor Merkel’s shoulders during a G-8 Summit some years back. For that matter, I recall only a few snarky comments about the moment that was video recorded for the world to see. Then it passed. Nothing else was said. No harm, no foul, right?

I have noted before, though, that the president does have a habit of referring to fellow members of the U.S. government by their first names while they refer to him publicly as “Mr. President.” I recall a meeting held at the White House with congressional leaders and Sen. John McCain was protesting a policy initiative coming from the White House. He referred to Obama as Mr. President, and the president referred directly to his 2008 campaign foe simply as “John.”

The exchange seemed oddly disproportionate and it bordered on disrespectful.

But such an exchange between heads of government? Hey, no problem.

Besides, has anyone bothered to ask the chancellor if she objects? Believe me, if she did, she’d say so and the president would refer to her differently.

So, lighten up, Mike.

 

national news

Ted Cruz: Exaggerator in chief

Ted Cruz’s mother must have told him when he was a boy: “If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate.”

Or perhaps words to that effect.

Well, the Texas Republican freshman U.S. senator, is exaggerating in the extreme — once again — while criticizing the Obama administration’s approach to fighting the war on terror.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ted-cruz-obama-radical-islamic-terrorists-115312.html?hp=l2_4

He can’t stop blasting President Obama for declining to use the words “Islamic terrorism.” He also ripped Obama a new one for the White House’s failure to acknowledge that the 21 Egyptians who were beheaded by Islamic State terrorists were Christians.

Oh, and then he was critical — naturally — for State Department flack Marie Harf’s statement that we need to work toward ending poverty in the nations that breed the terrorists. Cruz said this: “Now, with respect, that is idiocy. The solution here is not expanded Medicaid. The solution is the full force of U.S. military power to destroy the leaders of ISIS. They have declared war … jihad on the United States. Jihad is another word the president doesn’t say.”

I understand what the young man is seeking to do here. He’s trying to make a point by embellishing what Harf said, or meant. Medicaid? Come on.

As for the president being an “apologist for radical Islamic terrorists,” Sen. Cruz needs — once again — to examine the record. We’re killing these individuals every single day. We’re doing precisely what we’ve been doing since President George W. Bush sent us to war right after 9/11.

No, I don’t expect this kind of rhetoric to stop. After all, we’ve got a presidential campaign to wage and I expect fully to hear a lot more of it from other potential candidates for the White House. I’m just spewing my own frustration at what I keep hearing.

Bear with me, please. I’ll get over it — eventually.

 

International news, religious news

'Islamic terrorism' off the table at summit

The White House is going to play host to a summit discussion on international terrorism.

You won’t hear the words “Islamic terrorism,” though, used in that context.

How come?

http://nypost.com/2015/02/17/islamic-extremism-off-limits-at-white-house-terrorism-summit/

Conservatives have been critical of President Obama for declining to refer to Islamist terrorism. He’s been parsing his language carefully to call them simply “terrorists,” even though we’re bombing Islamic State targets, seeking out al-Qaeda terrorist cells and killing its leaders, and enlisting the aid of other allies to find terrorists linked to other Islamic groups, such as Hezbollah, Boko Haram and Hamas.

Don’t mention the words “Islamic terrorist,” though at this summit.

It’s an interesting and at times troubling quibble over the use of language.

I get where the critics are coming from, but at the risk of doing something that annoys me at times — such as trying to read the minds of political leaders — I think I’m going to offer one simple hypothesis for the linguistic omission: Barack Obama doesn’t want the Islamic extremists to use any additional pretext for suggesting that the West is waging a religious war against Islam.

Obama’s immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, made the point time and again that the United States is not doing battle against Islam. Obama has carried that message forward as he has continued taking the fight to the terrorists.

Yet, the Islamic terrorists — I’ll call them such here — keep trying to recruit fighters by suggesting that our side is fighting a religious war. President Obama says “no!,” just as President Bush said “no!” before him.

To use such language at the White House summit, I’m guessing, would enflame the passions further among those who continue to believe the lie that we’re waging war against one of the world’s great religions.

 

International news

House speaker mounts lame defense

John Boehner must be fantasizing about being president of the United States.

Why else would the speaker of the House of Representatives take it upon himself to buck long-standing diplomatic protocol by inviting a foreign head of government to speak to Congress without consulting first with the White House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/john-boehner-defends-netanyahu-invitation-115212.html?hp=c2_3

The speaker has defended his invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, saying he didn’t tell the White House because he didn’t want any interference from President Obama, who he thinks might seek to derail the invitation.

Such so-called “logic” simply dodges the real issue, which is whether it is appropriate for a legislative leader to go behind the back of the nation’s head of state — the president — in inviting a foreign dignitary to make a public speech before a joint congressional session.

To my way of thinking — and others as well — the speaker broke a long-held rule of diplomatic decorum.

And why? Because of some so-called tension between the president and the prime minister.

“There’s so secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu,” the Ohio Republican said. “I, frankly, didn’t want that getting in the way and quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.”

The “real opportunity,” according to Boehner, would be for Netanyahu to argue for stronger sanctions against Iran while the Islamic Republic is in the middle of nuclear disarmament negotiations with the State Department and other foreign governments. Barack Obama doesn’t want to impose any new sanctions while the negotiations are under way.

I agree totally with Boehner that Netanyahu is the “perfect person” to talk about radical Islamic terrorism and about the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That’s as far as Netanyahu should go, however, when he stands before a joint congressional session.

To lobby publicly for the increased sanctions now undercuts the president — which is another breach of decorum that Boehner has committed.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve got just one president at a time.

And, sir, it isn’t you.

 

political news

Obama 'selfie' reveals great divide

2 Comments

There can be no doubt — none, zero — that President Obama can do nothing without attracting the ire of his political foes.

His recent rash of “selfies,” distributed on BuzzFeed, has become the latest object of right-wing scorn.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/13/cue-conservative-media-outrage-over-obamas-self/202531

So help me, I don’t understand why the critics are so up in arms over these videos.

They show the president of the United States acting, well, like many of the rest of us. He’s borderline goofy, self-effacing, rather silly and, oh, maybe a little snarky.

Isn’t he acting like Mr. or Ms. Average Joe or Jane? Don’t others do much the same thing as what we’ve seen the president do?

The righties dislike the timing of one of his selfies, coming on the day that it was revealed Kayla Mueller died while in the hands of Islamic State terrorists. But wait! Didn’t Obama express heartfelt sympathy to Mueller’s family? Didn’t he assure them and the world that the terrorists would be brought to justice? Sure he did.

So, he takes a few minutes to promote Healthcare.gov through the recording of the selfie. What is the problem here?

It’s “beneath the dignity of the office,” we keep hearing.

I’ll just add that presidents of both political parties have acted like human beings while they’re in office. None of this is unique to the 44th president.

Let’s all just give the guy a break.

International news, political news

Note to Dems: Don't boycott Bibi's speech

The upcoming speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a joint session of Congress is taking an interesting — and unfortunate — turn.

Some leading Democratic lawmakers say they’re going to stay away from the March 3 speech. They won’t hear what Bibi has to say to them, including whether to impose stricter sanctions on Iran while the U.S. is leading a negotiating effort to end Iran’s nuclear program.

Vice President Biden won’t attend; his office said the VP will be traveling abroad when Netanyahu speaks to the joint session. I can’t help but wonder: Did the vice president schedule the overseas trip before or after Netanyahu’s speech was scheduled?

Don’t go there, Democrats.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/232065-dems-lining-up-to-skip-netanyahu-speech

Yes, Netanyahu is wrong to have accepted the invitation from Republican House Speaker John Boehner — who also was wrong to invite him without advising the White House. What’s more, Netanyahu is wrong to pressure Congress to act over the objections of the White House, which believes increasing sanctions now would undermine its efforts to disarm the Islamic Republic of Iran.

But is staying away from the speech the right approach to protesting? I’m inclined to think Democrats ought to hear — in person — what the prime minister has to say. They don’t have to stand and cheer when he delivers an applause line; Republicans undoubtedly will do enough cheering to fill the House chamber.

Come on, Netanyahu is the head of government of a leading U.S. ally, after all, and he deserves an audience — even if the invitation he accepted was not in keeping with American diplomatic and political tradition.

 

national news, political news

Mitt is out; eyes now turn to Jeb

Jeb Bush’s worst nightmare may have come true with Mitt Romney’s decision to forgo a run for the presidency in 2016.

With Mitt out of the picture, that puts the frontrunner’s bulls-eye on Jeb’s back.

It’s not going to be fun running from the front, according to Matt Latimer, writing for Politico.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-gop-2016-114787.html?hp=c2_3#.VM6ns1J0yt8

Indeed, we’re beginning to get just a taste of what lies ahead for Bush. Stories about his partying, alleged bullying and an apparent disinterest in all things political at the fancy prep school he attended are starting to surface.

Not that it’s a deal-breaker, mind you. To my mind, it paints this son of a wealthy, patrician family as a fairly normal guy — sort of the way his big brother, George W., behaved when he was going through the same period in his life. W’s life got a bit more twisted along the way, what with alcohol abuse — but he straightened out in time to be elected governor of Texas in 1994 and to be elected president of the United States in 2000.

Jeb’s probable run for the presidency next year will face similar obstacles. But now he’s the apparent frontrunner and he’s got some fiery foes breathing heavily to catch him.

Romney would have been one of them, given his own penchant for going for the throat (see Newt Gingrich in the 2012 GOP nomination campaign).

Sure, Mitt is out of the picture, so that saves Jeb Bush from suffering from Mitt’s slings and arrows.

However, he’s going to take some serious hits from the bevy of other contenders seeking a shot at the spotlight.

Be careful of what you seek, Jeb. It might find you.

 

national news

It's all Bibi's fault for U.S.-Israel misunderstanding

The relationship between President Barack Obama and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a turn for the worse.

Why? Well, it turns out Bibi didn’t talk Barack to advise him of an invitation he got to speak to the U.S. Congress, courtesy of House Speaker John Boehner.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/ron-dermer-john-boehner-israel-white-house-114771.html?hp=r1_3

He owed the president a phone call, observers have said. He didn’t make the call and accepted the invitation. The White House is fuming. I cannot blame the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Now it turns out the Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer is saying it wasn’t his fault. He did everything by the book.

The invitation and its resulting tension between Obama and Netanyahu has become a major back story behind the out front story: the effort to impose sanctions on Iran while the U.S. and other powers are trying to negotiate a settlement that ends Iran’s nuclear program. The Obama administration opposes the sanctions — at this time. Boehner and Netanyahu want to impose them, so Boehner asked Bibi to make his case publicly before a joint congressional session next month.

Gosh, is it any wonder the Obama administration is torqued out of shape over this?

The speaker of the House has made a mess of this by sidestepping the White House. The Israeli prime minister has become an accomplice to this messiness by accepting an invitation that shouldn’t have come to him in the first place.

Mr. Boehner, we have only one president at a time. And it isn’t you.

 

Intgernational news, national news

'Terrorist' requires a nuanced definition? No

The Taliban is a terrorist organization.

That’s my view and I’m sticking to it — no matter how finely the White House press flack tries to parse the definition of the term “terrorist.”

Press secretary Josh Earnest sought Thursday to say that the Taliban carries out “acts that are akin to terrorism,” but stopped short of calling the brutal killers and kidnappers “terrorists.” He said the Taliban falls into a “different category.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/taliban-terrorists-white-house/story?id=28588120

I guess Earnest, speaking on behalf of the president, is saying the Obama administration believes it’s OK to negotiate with the Taliban, whereas the White House refuses to negotiate with, say, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, Hezbollah or Hamas.

I’m beginning to sense that the famed nuanced foreign policy apparatus that the Obama White House is conducting might be getting a little too cute.

The Taliban are taking credit almost weekly for attacks against civilians in Afghanistan. They’ve brought considerable havoc as well to innocent victims in neighboring Pakistan. Good grief! The Taliban send in suicide bombers, they set off explosive on roadways traveled by villagers going to market, they kidnap and disfigure girls and young women who have the gall to stand up for their rights.

You’re more than welcome to correct me on any of this, but doesn’t any of that fit the classic description of a terrorist organization?

Yep. That’s the Taliban.

 

national news, political news

Palin's non-speech sours GOP base

Can it really be that the hard right wing of the Republican Party has come to its senses regarding a former half-term Alaska governor who for the past half-dozen years or so has been its darling?

Sarah Palin stood before the Iowa Freedom Summit and delivered what can only be described as a rhetorical goulash of blather.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/palin%e2%80%99s-speech-draws-fire-from-the-right/ar-AA8HGpj

It didn’t play well in Peoria, let alone in GOP strategists’ living rooms.

Her TelePrompter, loaded with prepared remarks, went pffftt. Left to her devices, Palin stammered her way through a bizarre litany of nonsensical sentences.

As the Washington Post described it: “Her address was a 31 1/2-minute roller coaster ride of cliches, non sequiturs and warmed-over grievances. One line that stood out: ‘GOP leaders, by the way, you know, ‘The Man,’ can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then The Man can’t ride ya.’”

Huh?

The Post reports that the critiques from those who heard Palin were harsh and unforgiving.

Darn! I was hoping she’d make a go of it, that her “serious” consideration of a White House campaign in 2016 would turn into the real thing.

Silly me. I guess I had forgotten — if only for a moment or two — about how miserable a campaigner she turned out to be when Sen. John McCain selected her as his vice-presidential running mate in the 2008 White House campaign. Or that she’d gotten twisted up in that goofy reality TV show. Or that she’s making a lot of money as a Fox News “contributor”; her precise contribution to Fox remains something of a mystery.

I suppose there’s some other stuff to mention, but I’ll just let it lie.

With that, I’ll bid adieu to Sarah Palin. It was nice while it lasted.