Emerging details of possible Iranian nuclear deal draw bipartisan ire

Emerging details of a possible nuclear deal with Iran have drawn sharp criticism from congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who say the U.S. and its international partners may be ceding too much as a key deadline nears.
If reports are true, "then we are not inching closer to Iran’s negotiating position, but leaping toward it with both feet,” charged Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a vocal critic of the direction of the talks.
“My fear is that we are no longer guided by the principle that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal,’ but instead we are negotiating ‘any deal for a deal’s sake.’”
The deal is not done, but sources tell FoxNews.com negotiations seem to be reaching a climax at the P5+1 talks in Lausanne, Switzerland. Lawmakers, meanwhile, appear to be getting more restive about whether the demands on Iran will be tough enough.
Details of the emerging deal include a possible trade-off which would allow Iran to run several hundred centrifuges in a once-top secret, fortified bunker site at Fordo, in exchange for limits on enrichment and nuclear research and development at other sites -- in particular, Iran's main facility at Natanz.
The terms of the agreement have not been confirmed and were shared with The Associated Press by officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to the AP report, no centrifuges at Fordo would be used to enrich uranium, but would be fed elements like zinc, xenon and germanium for separating out isotopes for medicine, industry or science.
Initially, the P5+1 partners, which include the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China and Germany, had wanted all centrifuges stripped away from the Fordo facility. However, under this reported deal, Iranian scientists would be prohibited from working on any nuclear research or development program there, and the number of centrifuges allowed would not be enough to produce the amount of uranium it takes to make a bomb within a year anyway, according to the officials.
The site also would be subject to international inspections.
But that did not seem to boost the confidence of detractors. In a symbolic statement underscoring the concerns of many lawmakers, the Senate also voted unanimously late Thursday for a non-binding Iran amendment -- to an unrelated budget measure. The amendment endorses the principles of separate legislation that would re-impose waived sanctions and level new ones on Iran if President Obama "cannot make a determination and certify that Iran is complying" with an interim agreement or any new one that is established in current talks.
Last Friday, 367 House lawmakers, including 129 Democrats, also wrote to Obama warning that a deal must “foreclose any pathway to a bomb” before they’ll support legislation lifting sanctions on Tehran. The letter was spearheaded by Reps. Ed Royce, R-Calif., and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
It is not clear whether the recent details emerging from the talks would satisfy that.
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also spoke out, calling them “disturbing.”   
“[The Iranians] have been cheating for the last 20 years, this facility [Fordo] was found out in 2009. At the end of the day it is a hardened site. To allow enrichment here would be, I think, very irresponsible,” he said in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News' “On the Record” on Thursday.  
“It would be delusional for any P5+1 agreement to allow [Iran] to enrich in a fortified facility,” Graham added. “The Arabs are not going to accept such a deal, and they’ll get a bomb of their own, then you’re on the road to Armageddon.”
Other observers of the agreement say the critics are rushing unnecessarily to judgment.
“We don’t know whether the reports are true – there’s been a lot of things leaked that may be true or may be a misunderstanding,” said Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, who spoke with FoxNews.com from the talks in Lausanne. “But if the reports are correct and there will be centrifuges with no uranium in it -- they can’t produce a bomb -- it’s really put the emphasis on the unreasonableness of the [critics'] objections.”
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, agreed. “I think Senator Graham and Senator Menendez need to take a step back and put this development in a broader context. The key to Fordo is that we do not want this to be a facility with industrial-scale uranium enrichment and this report suggests they are moving in that direction.”
The deal reportedly would scale back the centrifuges and uranium enrichment at Natanz and impose other restrictions on nuclear-related research and development. All of the options on the table right now are designed keep an Iranian “breakout” of a weapon at least one year away for the life of the deal, which would run for 10 years.
This is not enough, and smacks of too much compromise for too little in return, said Menendez. “An undue amount of trust and faith is being placed in a negotiating partner that has spent decades deceiving the international community.”  
That is the reason why David Albright, of Washington’s Institute for Security and International Security, is concerned about Fordo. The deal would allow the Iranians to keep their technology intact and if they please, could be repurposed to enrich uranium.
"It keeps the infrastructure in place and keeps a leg up, if they want to restart [uranium] enrichment operations," he said.
The White House said Friday that it was confident a “political agreement” will be made by the March 31 deadline, which would make space to negotiate the more complicated technical details ahead of the harder June 30 deadline.
“Important progress has been made but this president is not going to stop short,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. However, he “is not willing to accept an agreement that does not accomplish our goals which is to cut off every pathway Iran has to acquiring a nuclear weapon and secure their commitment to cooperating with a set of intrusive inspections to prove they are complying with the agreement.”

Senator’s questions over Clinton Foundation Nigerian donor spark GOP infighting

A GOP senator's questions over whether a foreign donor swayed Hillary Clinton's decisions while secretary of state have triggered a nasty -- and rather unusual -- dispute with a fellow Republican.
Last week, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., raised new conflict-of-interest concerns for Clinton regarding donations to her family's foundation, questioning whether Nigerian businessman and philanthropist Gilbert Chagoury played any role in her initial opposition to designating a major terror group.
Chagoury, a Nigerian citizen of Lebanese descent, has donated millions to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has long ties to the family. The Louisiana senator wants to know if that history had anything to do with Clinton's reluctance to designate Boko Haram a terror group while secretary of state.
"Chagoury is a huge donor to the Clinton Foundation," Vitter told FoxNews.com. "He clearly had an interest in keeping Nigeria looking better than it was. [The designation] would have absolutely hurt his bottom line.
"It is not a difficult set of dots to connect."
Vitter sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry last week raising these questions, saying: "We need to know if Mr. Chagoury had any influence in the decision not to designate Boko Haram an FTO, or had any other influence with Sec. Clinton's foreign policy decisions."
Chagoury did not respond to a request for comment.
But a veteran Republican media strategist in Washington, Mark Corallo, did. He's calling Vitter's "intimation" that Chagoury tried to delay the Boko Haram designation "ludicrous and laughable."
"I understand David Vitter's desire to score political points against Hillary Clinton. I was in the Clinton opposition business long before anyone had heard of Senator Vitter. And by all means it should be open season on Hillary," Corallo said in a lengthy statement. "But we should be careful to base our political attacks on facts, not innuendo dressed up as a Congressional inquiry. We shouldn't treat everyone who ever associated with the Clinton's as collateral damage."
Corallo, who served as Attorney General John Ashcroft's spokesman in the Bush Justice Department from 2002-2005, counts Chagoury as a close friend. He told FoxNews.com he represents Chagoury "pro bono," calling him "family."
In his statement, he added: "His love for America and his hatred of Islamic terrorists is intense and public."
At this point, Vitter is not offering proof that Chagoury, a Maronite Catholic, had advocated against the Boko Haram designation -- or even alleging it. But he raised the question -- the kinds of questions Clinton increasingly faces about her family foundation's donations as she gears up for a likely White House bid.
"I think broadly speaking, there are real substantive, legitimate questions," Vitter said, adding that he has "not come to this lately or lightly," noting he first raised the issue when Clinton was first nominated to lead the State Department in 2009.
Vitter also drew a connection between the two major controversies looming over Clinton's expected presidential bid: over Clinton Foundation donors, and her use of personal email while secretary of state. Vitter is asking whether, because of her personal email use, messages dealing with the Boko Haram designation are missing.
Vitter's letter asked the State Department for all documents regarding Clinton's decision not to support a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation for the Nigeria-based Boko Haram.
Kerry designated Boko Haram an FTO when he became secretary in 2013. By then, its ties to Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were clearly established. Since that time, the Islamic militant group -- which has been responsible for numerous civilian attacks, rapes and kidnappings in Nigeria, including of over 200 schoolgirls in April 2014 -- has sworn fealty to the Islamic State.
Whether Chagoury indeed had any interest in staving off the terror designation is unknown.
Chagoury is listed as giving between $1 million and $5 million on Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. In 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that Chagoury and his family have been longtime supporters of President Bill Clinton and he has donated funds to his campaigns, as well as Mrs. Clinton's unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008.
His bio is long: Chagoury is a hugely wealthy philanthropist giving to humanitarian, educational and Christian-Catholic causes. An ambassador of St. Lucia to the Holy See, he has been received "warmly" by Pope Francis "several times," said Corallo, and has donated millions to Catholic charities. According to Corallo, he was friends with Ronald Reagan and along with family members has given generously to Republican candidates, including the Republican Party and the George W. Bush Presidential Library, over the years. His friendship with Bill Clinton, said Corallo, was sparked by their shared interest in Africa.
Chagoury, who has a residence in Los Angeles, is not without controversy, however. He made his fortune building The Chagoury Group, described as an industrial conglomerate with interests in construction, real estate, property development, IT communications, finance and hotels. Both the Wall Street Journal and Harper's Magazine reported in 2008 that Chagoury has a "controversial past," having supported and advised de facto president Sani Abacha, who seized power in Nigeria in a 1993 military coup. His reign was marked by human rights abuses and corruption. After the general died in 1998, Chagoury paid $300,000 to the new Nigerian government in exchange for immunity in a broader investigation of billions of dollars improperly taken out of the country during Abacha's tenure.
"[Chagoury] was the gatekeeper to Abacha's presidency," Philippe Vasset, editor of Africa Energy Intelligence, told PBS Frontline in 2010.
Deals he has been involved with have been the target of bribery-related investigations over the years, but he "hasn't been accused of wrongdoing" in any of them, according to the Journal.
Requests for comment by FoxNews.com to Clinton's staff were not returned. When reached for comment, a spokesperson at the State Department told FoxNews.com they had received Vitter's letter and were reviewing it.
Peter Pham, an Africa expert at the Atlantic Council, agreed that the State Department was ambivalent about designating Boko Haram until 2012, but said the hesitancy was widespread throughout much of the foreign policy and intelligence community at the time.
"There was tremendous pushback," Pham told FoxNews.com, recalling his own advocacy for the FTO on Capitol Hill as early as 2011. He noted, too, that the Nigerian government was "in denial," and felt the designation would "impair foreign investment" and other assistance to the county. The government also worried the designation would give Boko Haram additional clout.
After the group kidnapped the schoolgirls in 2014, critics began to wonder whether the Clinton State Department had erred by not designating the group earlier.
Pham said he would "caution against presuming that because someone is a Nigerian they are necessarily nefarious" -- referring to the questions revolving around Chagoury.
However, he acknowledged that for Clinton, having these foreign donors "is a complicated thing ... it does raise issues."
Corallo said Chagoury has had no contact with Hillary Clinton "for years" and that even if Vitter gets new emails, "he'll find no emails or correspondence of any kind from Ambassador Chagoury with Secretary Clinton or the Department of State."
In 2008, Clinton signed an agreement that the foundation would not take money from foreign governments while she was secretary of state. A Washington Post report in February, however, indicated donations kept coming in from several governments because of an exemption for countries that were already donating at the time the agreement was made. At the time, foundation officials said the money went to the organization's charitable works, including earthquake relief in Haiti.

US preparing to boost aid to Saudi-led coalition to fight Houthi rebels, report says

The U.S. is reportedly preparing to boost its aid to Saudi Arabia in its air assault against rebel forces in Yemen.
The Wall Street Journal, citing military officials, reports the U.S. is going to provide the Saudis with more intel, bombs and aerial refueling missions for planes that are carrying out airstrikes in the embattled Arab nation.
The development comes after the Saudi Arabia-led coalition seized full control of Yemeni airspace after two days of airstrikes targeting Houthi rebels, who have taken control of Yemen’s capital and government, a Saudi Defense Ministry official told the paper.
The campaign has raised fears that Yemen’s crisis could escalate into a regional battle putting Sunni countries against Shiite Iran and the Shiite linked Houthis.
Top Sunni clerics have voiced their support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen Friday, while top Iranian leaders including President Hasan Rouhani have already condemned the intervention.
Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Shiite group Hezbollah in Lebanon condemned the “Saudi-American attack,” saying “it is the right of Yemen’s people, who are brave and resilient, to fight and resist, and they will succeed.
U.S. officials told the paper that Saudi officials have requested air tankers to refuel planes and for more American-made bombs to continue with the strikes. The U.S. is preparing to help the Saudis once the requests are approved in Washington.
Under the plan, the U.S. would step up its role in a new military coordination center to aid the Saudi Arabia-led campaign.
Saudi Arabia joined other Gulf nations and allies in a military campaign Thursday against the Iran-backed Houths, who have completely overrun most of Yemen in the last seven months.
Saudi Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asiri said in a press conference that Saudi Arabia has gained complete control of Yemeni airspace after knocking out Houthi air defense and fighter jets.
Asiri said there were no plans to add ground troops to the campaign, but said that they could be deployed if necessary. The Saudis also said they were coordinating with forces in Yemen that support President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who is backed by Saudi Arabia and the U.S.
The Saudis carried out the first of its airstrikes Thursday and were later joined by its ally the United Arab Emirates, Asiri said. Other coalition members include Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Egypt.
Friday’s strikes by Saudi Arabian Apache helicopters hit Houthi targets in the northern part of the country. Warplanes also assaulted the Al Anad air base as they took down other Houthi fighter jets and air defenses, Asiri said.
Violence in Yemen continues to escalate as the Houthis continue to advance throughout the nation. The rebels took the Sanaa in September forcing Hadi to flee. The Houthis continued to spread this week taking over Al Anad and threatened Aden. Hadi fled to Oman by boat and later to Saudi Arabia.
Egyptian state media reported Hadi will take part in an Arab League summit Saturday as an official delegate for Yemen. U.A.E.’s state news agency reported that Arab foreign ministers agreed to draft a resolution to create a pan-Arab military force.
U.S. officials fear the continued violence will allow militant groups to fill the security vacuum. Al Qaeda terrorist branch, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, calls Yemen its home and is believed to be one of the most dangerous groups in the branch.
U.S. Special Forces were cooperating with Hadi to carry out drone strikes against the AQAP from Al Anad. However, the escalating violence forced the U.S. to pull out.

Cell Phone Cartoon

Republicans see best shot yet at approving ObamaCare repeal as budget plan advances

Republicans may be divided over the particulars of dueling budget plans, but there is at least one area of agreement among GOP lawmakers: the desire to repeal ObamaCare.
And this year's budget legislation could give them the best chance yet to send repeal legislation to President Obama's desk.
The party -- which for the first time in eight years controls both the House and Senate -- is using the budget process to inch closer toward a repeal of the controversial health care law, even as Obama hailed it a success on its five-year anniversary this week.
The House on Wednesday night narrowly passed its version of a budget blueprint after Republican leaders agreed to tack on extra defense spending over the protest of conservative members who opposed busting the caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The Senate, meanwhile, is on track to approve its plan by the end of week following a marathon voting session that starts Thursday.
Leaders in both chambers have set a mid-April goal of resolving differences between the two approaches.
Why does this matter for ObamaCare?
Like many pieces of legislation before it, the proposal calls for undoing the health care law. What's significant this time is that it's contained in a budget resolution.
While the resolution is not legally binding, it gives Senate leaders a procedural tool by which subsequent legislation -- so long as it impacts spending or revenue -- can pass the chamber on a simple-majority vote, as opposed to the usual 60-vote threshold.
Known as budget "reconciliation," the tool is critical to GOP hopes of shelving ObamaCare, since Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's caucus of 54 is six votes short of filibuster-proof. (The budget itself is also subject to special rules and cannot be filibustered.)
Five years after the president signed it into law, polls show that ObamaCare -- also known as the Affordable Care Act -- remains unpopular, with 42 percent of the public approving of it compared with 53 percent who disapprove, according to the Real Clear Politics average.
The fact Obama likely would veto a rollback of his signature legislative achievement isn't stopping Republicans from fulfilling what they describe as a campaign promise.
"This new class, we were elected on ObamaCare, to repeal and replace it," Sen. Cory Gardner, a freshman Republican from Colorado, told Fox News' Neil Cavuto on "Your World" earlier this week. "I think the Republicans not only will have a plan, but something the president will accept, because it's something that we have to do, and that's important."
Democrats nevertheless continue to trumpet individual parts of the overhaul, citing benefits like the elimination of preexisting conditions as grounds for denial of coverage and the expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans. For his part, Obama acknowledges there may be room for improvement, but says Republicans should work with Democrats to address problems rather than aim for a wholesale repeal.
"Every public health policy has some tradeoffs, especially when it affects one-sixth of the American economy and applies to the very personal needs of every individual American," the president told an audience Wednesday. "We also know beyond a shred of the doubt the policy has worked. Coverage is up, cost growth is at a historic low, deficits have been slashed, lives have been saved. So if anybody wants to join us in the spirit of people putting aside differences and come here today and make the law work better, come on board."
But even if Obama were to veto their efforts, Republicans -- who have voted more than 60 times to repeal or undermine the law -- are champing at the bit to finally send legislation to his desk.
"By passing a balanced budget that's about the future, we can leave ObamaCare's higher costs and broken promises where they belong -- in the past," McConnell said Monday.
Details of a possible GOP replacement for ObamaCare remain elusive for the time being. There is no shortage of Republican-sponsored health-care bills percolating on the Hill but it isn't clear if the party will unite around one comprehensive magic bullet.
Indeed, given the likelihood of a veto many ObamaCare critics say the best shot they'll have at undermining the law could be in responding to a forthcoming Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell. In the event the high court rules against the administration, some 7.5 million Americans enrolled in federally run health-care exchanges could lose their subsidies as a result, according to a February estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
"I look forward to that opportunity," said Sen. Bill Cassidy, a freshman Republican from Louisiana who is also a medical doctor. "If it arises, we shall be ready."

Watchdog: DEA agents attended cartel-funded 'sex parties'

In another major embarrassment for federal law enforcement, a Justice Department watchdog report alleges several Drug Enforcement Administration agents attended "sex parties" with prostitutes paid for by local drug cartels.
The alleged parties took place in an unnamed "host country," which reportedly was Colombia, over a period of several years. According to the Justice Department inspector general report, the parties were even held in agents' U.S. government-leased quarters.
Further, agents received "money, expensive gifts, and weapons from drug cartel members," according to the report, which explored sexual misconduct allegations and how they are handled at the DEA; FBI; Bureau of  Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF); and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).
The IG report found such allegations often went unreported or underreported, or were not pursued properly.
The findings were immediately met Thursday with outrage on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers for years have pressured agencies to get tough on misconduct from within -- most notably, following the Secret Service prostitution scandal in 2012, also in Colombia.
"Once again, some federal law enforcement agents are acting like they belong in a college frat house rather than at a taxpayer-funded law enforcement agency tasked with interdicting illegal drugs," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in a statement. "It's extremely troubling that federal drug agents lacked the common sense to know that engaging with prostitutes hired by drug cartels was a bad idea."
Extensive interviews with DEA and host country officials from 2009-2010 revealed allegations against 10 agents, including a regional director. Seven admitted to attending the parties with the prostitutes, which allegedly were arranged by a police officer in the host country and took place between 2005 and 2008. A Washington Post story quoted a law enforcement source as confirming the incidents happened in Cartagena, Colombia, the scene of the 2012 sex scandal.
The DOJ inspector general said it initiated the report "in the wake" of that Secret Service scandal, in which 13 agents on a presidential detail were snagged hiring prostitutes and engaging in drunken revelry the night before President Obama arrived for the Summit of the Americas. A dozen U.S. military personnel were also punished for their involvement.

'It's extremely troubling that federal drug agents lacked the common sense to know that engaging with prostitutes hired by drug cartels was a bad idea.'- House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

In the DEA case, investigators said that the DEA had imposed suspensions on the men ranging from two to 10 days. The DEA inspector told the DOJ IG investigators that "prostitution is considered a part of the local culture and is tolerated in certain areas called 'tolerance zones,'" and that it is common for prostitutes to be "present at business meetings involving cartel members and foreign officers" -- and that all of this "affects the way in which federal law enforcement employees conduct themselves in this particular country."
Reached for comment, a DEA representative referred FoxNews.com to the agency's official response in the report. That response said the investigation of misconduct allegations is "the primary mission" of its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). DEA did a "second review" of all the cases the IG reviewed to see if the OPR did its job and the DEA determined that they were "investigated properly through DEA's disciplinary process for related misconduct."
Separately, a spokesman with the Department of Justice said the DOJ takes the issues in the report "seriously" and "is taking steps to implement policies and procedures to help prevent them from happening in the future." He added: "The Department is already working with the law enforcement components to ensure a zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment and misconduct is enforced and that incidents are properly reported."
Members of Congress were quick to weigh in, saying this was more than a matter of cultural differences, but a danger to Americans.
"Let there be no mistake, this is a national security threat," said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who called for the immediate firing of the agents involved. "The gross misconduct of DEA agents follows a disturbing pattern of risky and improper behavior afflicting Homeland Security and the Department of Justice."
The oversight committee already has scheduled a hearing on the findings, for April 14.
The report detailed other cases as well. This includes that of an ATF director who initiated "sexual play" with multiple anonymous partners in a hotel room; a U.S. marshal who admitted to having sexual relations with prostitutes in Thailand; and numerous allegations of sexual harassment throughout the agency.

School named after war hero forces child to shave off military-style haircut

Adam Stinnett looks up to his older stepbrother – a soldier in the U.S. Army. So when it came time to get a haircut, the seven-year-old told his mother he wanted a basic military-style cut. And that’s exactly what he got – high and tight – just like his stepbrother.
Adam got his haircut on March 8. On March 9, his mother got a letter from the principal of Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary School in McMinnville, Tennessee.
It seems they were not all that thrilled with the second grader’s new hairdo. The principal told Amy Stinnett that her son’s haircut was distracting – and needed to be fixed.

The principal told Amy Stinnett that her son’s haircut was distracting – and needed to be fixed

Amy refused to comply.
The following day, she was summoned to the principal’s office where she was given an ultimatum.
“We were told that we had to either cut his hair or he could not return to school,” she said.
Amy tried to explain to the principal that her son’s haircut was meant to emulate his older brother. But her explanation was dismissed and the principal demanded that the boy’s hair be “in compliance with our rules.”
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION!
“I have the utmost respect for the military and its members,” the principal wrote in an email to Amy. “However, we are not a military school and the boy’s haircut is against our rules.”
She tried to reason with the principal – but it was a lost cause. So Amy complied with the school’s demands.
“In order to fix the high and tight, I had to shave his head – like he has no hair,” she told me.
Apparently the principal at Bobby Ray Elementary School doesn’t seem to think a bald-headed second grader is going to cause a distraction.
But Amy also did something else – she contacted the Southern Standard newspaper. And as it turned out – the pen really is mightier than the clippers.
“Military hair cut deemed distracting by Bobby Ray Elementary” was the headline – and boy did it create some controversy around McMinnville.
“They shamed my son and they shamed a lot of military people – that’s how I feel about it,” Amy said. She also would like the school to apologize to her son.
The Warren County School District responded to the newspaper story with a four-paragraph statement telling folks they could not comment on the incident or the investigation – on the advice of their attorneys.
“This is an internal school matter and the administration of the school district has been advised to address it as such from this point forward,” the statement read.
While the district does not have a policy about hair styles, individual schools are given authority to make such decisions.
“Neither Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary, nor any school in Warren County School District, prohibits military haircuts,” the statement declares.
Well, someone at the district office might want to clue in the principal -- because according to her email – military style haircuts are clearly against the rules.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs in McMinnville – especially when you take into account that Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary School is named after a local war hero.
Navy Corpsman David Robert “Bobby” Ray was killed in action during the Vietnam War. His final act of heroism was to use his body to shield a Marine from a grenade. The Marine survived. Ray did not. He was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.
“We are extremely proud that Bobby Ray Memorial Elementary was named in honor of a true American hero,” the school district stated.
And yet, they chose to shame a seven-year-old boy who wanted to look like a soldier. That school district doesn’t know the first thing about honor.

House panel asks White House for documents related to Bergdahl swap

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked the Obama administration Thursday to turn over all reports and documents, including intelligence information, related to last year's exchange of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five members of the Taliban.
"It is unclear from the information that has been provided to the Committee and from publicly available reports why the decision was made to exchange Sgt. Bergdahl for the five Taliban members," said the letter, which was addressed to White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough.
On Wednesday, Bergdahl was charged by the military with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. He was released from Taliban captivity last May after being held as a prisoner of war for five years. In the wake of Bergdahl's release and return to the U.S., fellow soldiers accused him of deliberately walking away from his Afghanistan post and putting the lives of soldiers who sought to find him at risk.
News of the charges against Bergdahl has prompted heavy criticism of the administration in Congress, where lawmakers slammed the White House for transferring the five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the Gulf state of Qatar without prior consultation.
"Today's announcement is the exclamation point on the bad deal the Obama administration cut to free five terrorist killers in its rush to empty the prison at Guantanamo Bay," Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Wednesday.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the charges were sure to "raise doubts in the mind of the average American" about the initial trade for Bergdahl.
Fox News reported Wednesday that at least three of the five have attempted to reconnect with their former comrades since their arrival in Qatar. The men are being monitored by the Qatari government and U.S. intelligence agencies. But the initial terms of the swap deal only extend for one year, meaning they could be free to return to Afghanistan or elsewhere later this spring. It is not clear whether the U.S. will seek to extend the agreement.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki defended the Bergdahl deal in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly Wednesday evening.
"Was it worth it? Absolutely," Psaki said. "We have a commitment to our men and women serving in the military, defending our national security every day, that we're going to do everything to bring them home if we can, and that's what we did in this case."