For those wondering how their lawmakers stand on Pres. Obama’s proposed attack on Syria, The Hill has published a list. Unfortunately it does not include all senators and congressmen (my senators are not listed and my congressman is still on the fence), but apparently it is being updated as new information is obtained. I’ve written each … Continue reading Storm in DC: Where your lawmakers stand on Syria
I‘d almost tuned out the discussions about Syria and what appears to be an impending US intervention into a secular war that is none of our business. I’ve heard all the arguments on both sides. The president has made his pronouncement, and although he’s invited Congress to weigh in, it sounded for all the world … Continue reading Violence is not a solution
In The New Yorker yesterday, George Packer wrote “Two Minds on Syria.” It covers many of the issues in the current “should we or shouldn’t we” discussions about how to react to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. And at the risk of repeating what others have already said, I have a few things … Continue reading On red lines and war
The Libyan rebels caught and killed Moammar Gadhafi today. I was surprised to hear it only because I had assumed that by now he’d fled the country, possibly with a big pile of those missing shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles. Since he opted to stay in Libya as he’d sworn he would, his capture and death were … Continue reading Gadhafi’s dead, turn on the oil
President Obama said today Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad, must go. Al-Assad is killing his own citizens. He’s violating human rights. There’s a humanitarian crisis in progress. Yes, and as a matter of fact, it’s been going on for months. And belatedly, finally, our president has joined European leaders and NATO in demanding al-Assad step down. … Continue reading Here we go again
Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark has been getting hammered, criticized, and repudiated for his comment yesterday on “Face the Nation” about Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain. Unfairly, I think.
Host Bob Schieffer said, “I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean — .”
Clark replied, “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
End of story. Or it should have been. Talk about a tempest in a teapot! Stating the truth is not a crime; it’s not even a story. Being a pilot who gets shot down is not a qualification to be president. Military service of any kind is not a qualification. It never has been, and without a Constitutional amendment, it never will be. Yet McCain and his supporters are upset because they think McCain’s military service was being dissed. That’s not what Clark said. The Obama camp also was quick to repudiate Clark, because Republicans were saying Clark had spoken as an Obama surrogate. Clark is a Democrat, but has no connection to the Obama campaign and was, in fact, a Hillary supporter until she dropped out of the race.
The media have been going absolutely bananas over Clark’s remark, when there is absolutely no story there (not that they haven’t done this many times before). Clark himself is not backing away from the comment, nor should he. However clumsy he might have sounded, truth is his defense. The same cannot be said for the media pundits, who just can’t seem to stop fanning the flames of their own silliness.
Continue reading “Wes Clark comments just a media tempest in a teapot”
