PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FINAL PRESS CONFERENCE

After listening to part and reading the whole of the text of President Obama's final press conference, I came away thinking that his optimism seemed quaint, as if from another time quite different from the present.  I wondered if he truly felt optimistic, or if he stretched the truth a bit about his real feelings to lift the spirits of the people of the country so that we don't lose all hope.  Either way, I completely understand why he spoke as he did, and I admire him for doing so.  Of course, it's quite possible that, through it all, he remains what he's always been, a man of hope.

Obama has taken the duties of the presidency as seriously as any president in my lifetime and has been a steadying hand in the midst of difficult times.  He carried himself always with a dignity and composure that befitted the office of the president, and I admire greatly.  He is a mensch.  I'll surely not see his like in my lifetime.

The president's prepared statement at the beginning of the video, which is approximately eight and a half minutes long, is well worth watching or reading.  His final words:

So even in a season where the incredible blessings that we know as Americans are all around us, even as we enjoy family and friends and are reminded of how lucky we are, we should also be reminded that to be an American involves bearing burdens and meeting obligations to others. American values and American ideals are what will lead the way to a safer and more prosperous 2017, both here and abroad, and, by the way, if you embody those values and ideals like our brave men and women in uniform and their families.

So I just want to close by wishing all of them a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

The Washington Post has the entire text of the press conference.

HONORING THE FALLEN - MEMORIAL DAY, 2016

American casualties returning to Dover AFB

For the past several days, I've been thinking and remembering the the men and women who lost their lives in the many wars over the course of the history of our country and wondering what I might write to pay tribute to them.  Sad to say, new graves for the fallen are still being dug today, for the US seems to be in a place of perpetual war.

Old anti-war songs come to mind like Pete Seeger's "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?", Bob Dylan's "With God on Our Side", and Eric Bogle's "The Green Fields of France".

The other day I read an essay by Jennie Haskemp in the Washington Post titled, "I'm a veteran, and I hate 'Happy Memorial Day.'  Here's why."  The essay is quite moving, but it's a tough read.  Haskemp is a Marine Corps veteran, who lost a number of friends and acquaintances, and she should know.

That’s when it hit me. I’m angry. I’ve come to realize people think Memorial Day is the official start of summer. It’s grilled meat, super-duper discounts, a day (or two) off work, beer, potato salad and porches draped in bunting.

But it shouldn’t be. It’s more than that.
....

How is it then, some century and a half later, after more than a decade of war in two countries that claimed the lives of some 6,861 Americans, we are collectively more concerned with having a barbecue and going shopping than pausing to appreciate the cost of our freedom to do so?

A friend reminded me that plenty of people use the weekend the way it was designed: to pause and remember the men and women who paid the price of our freedom, and then go on about enjoying those freedoms.

But I argue not enough people use it that way. Not enough people pause. Not enough people remember.

I’m frustrated by people all over the country who view the day as anything but a day to remember our WAR DEAD. I hate hearing “Happy Memorial Day.”

It’s not Veterans Day. It’s not military appreciation day. Don’t thank me for my service. Please don’t thank me for my service. It’s take the time to pay homage to the men and women who died while wearing the cloth of this nation you’re so freely enjoying today, day.

Which is what I've been doing for most of the week.  The entire essay is well worth a read.

The photo at the head of the post of the coffins of service members returning to the US from Iraq and Afghanistan to Dover Air Force Base in Dover, Delaware, is memorable, because publication of pictures was banned for 18 years out of concern for the privacy of the families of the fallen, until Defense Secretary of Defense Robert Gates lifted the ban in 2009.  The decision was controversial within the military and within military family organizations

Gates said he came to the conclusion that "we should not presume to make the decision for the families; we should actually let them make it."

Under the new policy, photographs will not be permitted of a coffin if a family says no. The policy is similar to one in place for funerals at Arlington National Cemetery.
....

Jon Soltz, the chairman of VoteVets.org, an anti-Iraq war group that says it has 15,000 military families as members, said he was pleased with the decision.

"So many Americans want to have Memorial Day once a year, when they go to the beach and cook hot dogs in the backyard," Soltz said.

OOPS! NOT CLOSE TO 150 FBI AGENTS WORKING ON CLINTON'S EMAILS

From TalkingPointsMemo:

After The Washington Post published a lengthy investigation into the origins of Hillary Clinton's email scandal, including the bombshell revelation that 147 FBI agents were looking into her private server, the newspaper corrected its report late Tuesday to note the number of agents looking into Clinton’s emails as actually fewer than 50. 

The recently edited version of the 5000 word article by Robert O'Harrow in the WP has the following correction at the very end for those who have the stamina to read that far.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50. 

When I read about the nearly 150 FBI agents in the original article, the number sounded incredible to me. Since the article has been linked several times, the number 150 will stick despite the correction. My guess for the anonymous source in the original is a GOP congressional staff member who had incomplete information or who passed on incorrect information to Robert O'Harrow, and - surprise! - the reporter fell for the story.  (Added note: I did not need to guess about the anonymous source; the statement "a lawmaker briefed by FBI director James Comey" appears in the article and in the correction.)

What those who hope for an indictment don't understand or don't care to understand is that Clinton would have had to knowingly send classified emails on an insecure server. Emails that were classified after being sent would not lead to an indictment. Who knows but that Clinton's server was more secure that the State Department server? Colin Powell said he set up a private server when he was Secretary of State because the Department's server was so old and clunky.

Chris Cillizza could not resist chiming in on his WP blog, and, as of now, his blog has not been corrected.  Cillizza noted the following:

Both stories make clear that, according to legal experts, Clinton is very unlikely to be punished for her exclusive use of a private email server during her time at State since the practice was not forbidden. (Worth noting: Lots of other secretaries of state used private email accounts to supplement their official accounts; none used only a private email account and server.)

But then Cillizza goes on to add:

Potentially more problematic for Clinton is her insistence that she never knowingly sent or received any messages that were marked classified at the time. It’s been shown in the year-plus of investigations into her server that there were a number of items on Clinton’s server that were classified after the fact, but there is no evidence to make her initial statement untrue.  (My emphasis)

If there is no evidence that Clinton's initial statement is untrue, why is her insistence that she never knowingly sent classified emails problematic?  It is a puzzlement.

Full disclosure: I skimmed through most of the article in the WP, because I've already read so much about the email "scandal", and I watched much of Clinton's 11-hour grilling in which she made fools of the six Republican members of the Benghazi!!! committee. 5000 words was just too much of the same old, same old.  How unfortunate that with all that work, the reporter made such a mistake.   A source who will not go on the record is problematic, too.

Update from NBCNews:

But a former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base.
"There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case," says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

More anonymous sources, and the plot thickens.