Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn OPINION. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn OPINION. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

OPINION: It's Time for Obama to Declare 'Buck Stops Here'

The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday's press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:

In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?” 

That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.

What we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

Benghazi may not be "Obama's Watergate," as Sen. Lindsay Graham has called it, but what we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day -- and it's clear that the administration's actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.

But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.

We have Attorney General Eric Holder -- he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president's first term -- revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from the investigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.” 

The bipartisan response to Monday's disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner's office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he's “outraged” -- but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news.

But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency's targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread. 

Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.

Again, who’s in charge here?

And finally there's what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi: 

On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice's talking points -- we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit -- even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.  

This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions.  The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover,  their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

What’s next?

Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.

Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.

Perhaps it's time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law -- clean house if and when necessary -- and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 8 tháng 5, 2013

OPINION: The Truth About Sanford's South Carolina Victory

Mark Sanford won the special election in South Carolina’s first congressional district Tuesday night. Democrats really thought they could win this seat, going so far as to outspend Sanford.  

But it was not in the cards.  

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, their preferred candidate, was a terrible candidate in a heavily Republican district.

In 2009 and early 2010, the Democrats won a series of special elections and trumpeted that voters were embracing Barack Obama. They went on to get spanked by the voters in the 2010 general election. Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

Neither side should read more into this special election than there is.

What is there is the simple fact that, despite what the national media would have voters believe, there are still many parts of the country that do not like liberals.  

Just as a Republican could never win Nancy Pelosi’s district, Nancy Pelosi helped Mark Sanford rally conservatives to his side in a very Republican district.

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch showed her shallowness on a number of issues, including not recognizing what “Toomey-Manchin” is in a very second amendment state.  (If Ms. Colbert-Busch is reading this, that would be the gun control measure that failed in the United States Senate)  

Consequently, she opted out of most debate opportunities.  Instead of debating her, Mark Sanford toured the district with a life sized cut out of Nancy Pelosi.  It worked.

Sanford, for all his personal faults, is a master of retail politics.  He opted for large, wooden, spray painted campaign signs put in the front windows of local shops and the side of roads.  

He toured the district aggressively while the Democrat held meet and greets with rich donors.  

He ate a lot of barbecue.  

He shook a lot of hands.  

He spent time one on one with voters at their doorsteps.  

He let those who had issues with him address them on their front porch to his face.

On election day, Mark Sanford voted and make almost a dozen campaign stops.  Elizabeth Colbert-Busch voted and disappeared.  

The pace was consistent throughout the special election. Even with news about Mark Sanford getting in trouble with his ex-wife, Colbert-Busch did not hustle on the ground, just expecting voters to embrace her.  

In the end, Republicans found a mug shot of her arrest during a messy divorce. The Democrats were caught off guard and did not respond.

The irony now is that Democrats are left to say Mark Sanford’s victory is a loss for women.  These very same Democrats are putting up a man, Chuck Sheheen, to run against South Carolina’s female Governor, Nikki Haley.  

Democrats can claim the GOP is hypocritical voting for a guy like Mark Sanford while claiming to be for family values.  

Between Bill Clinton and Kermit Gosnell, no one would ever accuse the Democrats of being for family values.  They will also accuse the GOP of selling out its fiscal values by supporting a guy like Sanford who, while being paid by taxpayers, went to Argentina to see his mistress.

But the lesson of South Carolina’s special election Tuesday night is actually simpler than all that — some areas of the country just hate liberals. 

The Democrats may have yellow dog Democrats who’d rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican, but the Republicans have Sanford Republicans.  They’d rather Mark Sanford, warts and all, than an elitist liberal whose greatest claim to fame is her brother Stephen.

Now the real fun begins.  

Mark Sanford is no fan of Republican leaders in Congress. They yanked their money from his race, choosing to let him fend for himself. 

On election night, the National Republican Congressional Committee, in charge of helping Republican candidates, mentioned Mark Sanford once and Nancy Pelosi twice in its press release on the race.

They opposed Sanford, a strident fiscal conservative, in the primary and did not help him against the Democrats.  

This should be fun to watch.

Erick Erickson is a Fox News contributor and editor of RedState.com.  Follow him on Twitter @EWErickson.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 3 tháng 4, 2013

AP under criticism for nixing 'illegal immigrant'- OPINION: AP surrenders language to drive an agenda

The Associated Press is being accused of trying to influence the immigration debate following a decision to stop using the term "illegal immigrant" in its coverage -- despite the fact it is still being used by U.S. government officials including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. 

The decision comes as a bipartisan group of senators prepares to introduce sweeping immigration legislation which is expected to propose a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. 

Indeed, the move by the influential wire service is being hailed as a victory by immigrant advocacy groups. 

The conservative Media Research Center, though, described the change as a "politically-correct mumble."

The new style guideline was first announced this week on the wire service’s blog by Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll, who said the change came out of conversations with people who opposed the term.

“Our goal always is to use the most precise and accurate words so that the meaning is clear to any reader anywhere,” Carroll said.

“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person,” Carroll said. “Instead, it tells users that ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.”

Still, some are wondering why the AP decided to nix the phrase when high-ranking government officials don’t seem to have a problem with it.

Last week, Napolitano told reporters that she didn’t “really get caught up in the vocabulary wars.”

“They are immigrants who are here illegally, that’s an illegal immigrant,” she said.

Previously, the AP rejected the term “undocumented immigrants,” favored by some activists, as inaccurate.

Changes to the AP Stylebook, which is updated annually, have important and widespread repercussions in the media. The changes don't just influence the AP's writing, which is found in publications around the world. The book is the primary writing style guide for journalists in both print and broadcast. 

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a group of 27 House Democrats, applauded the AP’s decision and called it “a great step forward.”

On a more tongue-in-cheek note, ALIPAC announced Wednesday it would be changing its “style” preference in all future articles to "illegal invaders" -- "in response to the totalitarian steps by the Associated Press to make 'illegal immigrants' disappear with the stroke of a pen just days before legislation attempting to do the same is expected to be filed in Washington, DC, by the 'Gang of 8.'" 

Comedian Jay Leno joked that the phrase should be replaced with "undocumented Democrat." 

The AP said its decision to stop using the term “illegal immigrants” is part of a broader shift away from labeling people and toward labeling behavior -- for example, referring to people “diagnosed with schizophrenia” instead of “schizophrenics.”

In 1986, the AP’s then-stylebook editor Christopher French used the same reasoning to support the wire service’s decision to use “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life,” and abortion rights instead of “pro-abortion” or “pro-choice.”

“Until a specific rule is agreed upon at AP, the following existing guideline is being applied: Avoid labeling groups or individuals and instead spend an extra sentence on a more specific description,” French said at the time.  

In February, it reversed a decision on gay marriage, saying people in same-sex marriages could now be referred to as “husbands” and “wives.”

Several news organizations are also dropping the term “illegal immigrant” from their reporting. CNN, ABC News and NBC News have all parted ways with the phrase in the past few years. 

The debate on whether to change the term at The New York Times is still being debated, public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote in an article Tuesday.

“The Times, for the past couple of months, has also been considering changes to its stylebook entry on this term and will probably announce them to staff members this week,” she wrote.  

“From what I can gather, The Times’s changes will not be nearly as sweeping as The AP’s,” Sullivan said, adding, “I would be surprised to see The Times ban the use of ‘illegal immigrant,’ as the AP has done.”


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 19 tháng 3, 2013

IRAQ, 10 YEARS LATER: Opinion: World Is Better Without Saddam Hussein

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein ruling Iraq, and the alternative to what we did wasn’t to do nothing. While the extensive investigation by the Iraq Survey Group did not find the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that U.S. (and British and French and other) intelligence services expected we would find, it did confirm that Saddam hadn’t given up on his pursuit of weapons. He fully intended to restart the programs, through which he had produced chemical and biological weapons and pursued nuclear weapons in the past, as soon as sanctions were lifted.

As a strictly military matter, if the war in Iraq had actually ended when we got to Baghdad, it would have been counted an historic victory, akin to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s daring amphibious landing at Inchon in the rear of the invading North Korean army in 1950 during the Korean War.

Also like Inchon, however, the arrival of coalition forces in Baghdad turned out to be not the end but more nearly the beginning of the real war. In the case of Korea, it was China’s entry into the war. In the case of Iraq it was the insurgency, although many saw it as simply “post-conflict” chaos, a result of our having “broken” Iraq.

The principal reason why the war in Iraq proved so difficult and lasted so long is that it took so long to develop a counterinsurgency strategy.

The principal reason why the war in Iraq proved so difficult and lasted so long is that it took so long to develop a counterinsurgency strategy. The essence of such a strategy is that protecting the population must be the primary focus of the effort, not just killing or capturing the enemy. Because confronting insurgents is so dangerous, particularly for unarmed civilians, U.S. forces need to attend to the security of the population if they want to gain their cooperation and obtain essential intelligence.

Eventually, in 2007, the U.S. did implement a counter-insurgency strategy which became known as “the surge.” While a counter-insurgency strategy required more troops – roughly 30,000 to reach a peak of 170,000, the surge wasn’t primarily about adding more troops. The new strategy was primarily about using those forces in a different way.

If it is surprising that it took the U.S. four years to begin to pursue a counter-insurgency strategy, it is even more surprising that the new strategy produced such dramatic results so quickly. And it did so despite the growth in the insurgency and despite the sectarian violence that had begun to spin out of control after the Samarra mosque bombing in February 2006.

Such a rapid reversal is almost unprecedented in the history of guerilla warfare and probably several different factors help to explain it. But the speed with which things turned around in Iraq, even after reaching such a low point, gives an idea of how different things might have been if the U.S. had been pursuing a counter-insurgency strategy from the outset. Those four years of delay cost lives and treasure and lost opportunities.

No matter how much we wish to avoid it, we may have to confront insurgents again someday. If so, we should not have to relearn the lessons acquired at such cost from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Paul Wolfowitz, now an American Enterprise Institute scholar, was U.S. deputy secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2005.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 4 tháng 3, 2013

Senate confirms Hagel as Defense secretary- OPINION: 7 things at the top of Hagel's 'to do' list

The Senate approved Chuck Hagel's nomination for Defense secretary Tuesday, ending a contentious battle that exposed deep divisions over the president's Pentagon pick. 

After Republicans blocked the nomination earlier this month, they ultimately allowed for an up-or-down vote on Tuesday. The margin was historically close, with 58 senators supporting him and 41 opposing in the end. 

Though Hagel is himself a former Republican senator, the resistance to his nomination showed an unusual level of distrust among many senators toward the man chosen to lead the Defense Department -- at a time when the country is trying to wind down the Afghanistan war, while assessing emerging threats from Iran, Syria and elsewhere in the turbulent Middle East and North Africa. 

Republicans had earlier held up the nomination largely over demands for more information from the Obama administration on the Sept. 11 Libya attacks. 

But they also raised serious and recurring concerns about Hagel's record of past statements and votes on everything from Israel to Iran to nuclear weapons. 

Sen. John McCain, a leading Republican, clashed with his onetime friend over his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 at a point when the war seemed in danger of being lost. Hagel, who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, later opposed the conflict, comparing it to Vietnam and arguing that it shifted the focus from Afghanistan. 

McCain called Hagel unqualified for the Pentagon job even though he once described him as fit for a Cabinet post. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked what the delaying tactics had done for "my Republican colleagues." 

"Twelve days later, nothing. Nothing has changed," the Democrat said on the Senate floor. "Sen. Hagel's exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished." 

Reid blamed partisanship over Obama's second-term national security team for the delay. Both Reid and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, warned that it was imperative to act just days before automatic, across-the-board budget cuts hit the Pentagon. 

Hagel will succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and join Obama's retooled national security team. Hagel's nomination bitterly split the Senate, with Republicans turning on their former party colleague and Democrats standing by Obama's nominee. 

Republicans also challenged Hagel about a May 2012 study that he co-authored for the advocacy group Global Zero, which called for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and the eventual elimination of all the world's nuclear arms. 

The group argued that with the Cold War over, the United States can reduce its total nuclear arsenal to 900 without sacrificing security. Currently, the U.S. and Russia have about 5,000 warheads each, either deployed or in reserve. Both countries are on track to reduce their deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by 2018, the number set in the New START treaty that the Senate ratified in December 2010. 

In an echo of the 2012 presidential campaign, Hagel faced an onslaught of criticism by well-funded, Republican-leaning outside groups that labeled the former senator "anti-Israel" and pressured senators to oppose the nomination. The groups ran television and print ads criticizing Hagel. 

Opponents were particularly incensed by Hagel's use of the term "Jewish lobby" to refer to pro-Israel groups. He apologized, saying he should have used another term and should not have said those groups have intimidated members of the Senate into favoring actions contrary to U.S. interests. 

The nominee spent weeks reaching out to members of the Senate, meeting individually with lawmakers to address their concerns and seeking to reassure them about his policies. 

Hagel's halting and inconsistent performance during some eight hours of testimony at this confirmation hearing last month undercut his cause, but it wasn't a fatal blow. 

There was no erosion in Democratic support for the president's choice and Hagel had the backing of three Republicans -- Sens. Thad Cochran, Mike Johanns and Richard Shelby. Other Republicans were reluctant to block a president's Cabinet choice from getting a yes or no vote, fearing the precedent. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here