George W Bush Has Not Joined the Resistance

Commemorating Presidents' Day, former president George W. Buxh recently wrote a piece honoring President George Washington for More Perfect initiative of the substack In Pursuit. (This was a segment in a series in which ex-presidents and others are invited to write about an ex-President.) The second paragraph of his essay captures its spirit:

Few qualities have inspired me more than Washington’s humility. I have studied the corrupting nature of power, and how retaining power for power’s sake has infected politics for generations. Our first president could have remained all-powerful, but twice he chose not to. In so doing, he set a standard for all presidents to live up to. His life, with all its flaws and achievements, should be studied by all who aspire to leadership. George Washington’s humility in giving up power willingly remains among the most consequential decisions and important examples in American politics.

Much of the media swooned. Inquisitr recognizes "reports suggesting criticism of Trump argue that the essay is heavy with subtext" while "some readers.... believe that Bush is directly being critical of Trump." A reporter for the Culture section of The New York Times, contrasting the Washington presidency with the Bush presidency, remarked

The essay praising Washington's decision to step aside comes as the idea that Donald Trump would run for a third term has continued to circulate since the beginning of his second term last January- by the president and people in his inner circle. Trump 2028 merchandise went on sale in early 2025.

The New Republic noted that Bush 43 had praised the first President for his "'humility', a deep appreciation for history, a revernce for knowledge superior to his own, and an unwilliness to retain power'for power's sake.'" Moreover

Bush’s adoring gaze toward the qualities of America’s first president only served to underscore just how unpresidential the current administration has become.

Bush waxed poetic on several of George Washington’s qualities, but paid particular attention to ones that are currently in short supply. Those included “humility,” a deep appreciation for history, a reverence for knowledge superior to his own, and an unwillingness to retain power “for power’s sake.”..

The message carried particular weight considering that Donald Trump has continually contested election results in fruitless grasps at power, including an attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election and threats to run for president a third time, against the constraints of the law.

Yet, the Republican ex-President invoked only those attributes which President Washington possessed. He did not mention those things Washington avoided: a love of tyrants; encouraging a violent insurrection or the execution of his political enemies; monetizing the presidency; a penchant for lying: a fondness for calling enemies "vermin" or "radical left thugs."  or "Dummy Beto," "degenerate animal," "Dirty Cop," "third rate reporter," or "crazy" anybody.

Former US Representative Joe Wilson, an early and now repentant Tea Partier, is having none of it. Responding to the whitewashing of George W Bush, Wilson argues

And W has not said a damn thing. His utter silence in this age of Trump. He could have made a difference. His utter silence in this age of Trump has been so damn cowardly and such a damn dispappointment, I don't give a flying fuck about George W Bush's "subtle jabs" or "subtle swipes" at Trump. Fuck his subtle jabs. George W- what a disappointment. Respectfully, you can fuck right off."

George W Bush’s utter silence in this age of Trump has been so damn cowardly and such a damn disappointment. Respectfully George W, you can fuck right off.👇 pic.twitter.com/Sg1ABiSN5L

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) February 17, 2026

If Bush wanted to take a figurative shot at, or throw "shade" (as the Times put it) upon Donald Trump, he could have mentioned any of these, or a couple of dozen other, faults. He might have invoked the name of the incumbent President, referred to "the President" or the "office's incumbent." Anything to suggest that he was thinking of Donald J. Trump. But he didn't. Instead, the stunningly dishonest Bush concludes

I often say that the office of the president is more important than the occupant; that the institution of the presidency gives ballast to our ship of state. For that stability we are indebted to the wisdom of our founding fathers’ governing charter and the humility of our nation’s first president. It has guided us for 250 years, and it will strengthen us for our next 250 years.

Donald Trump has proven that the office of the President can pale in comparison to the occupant; that there currently is no "ballast" to "our ship of state" and the country is deeply unstable; that the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and humility of our first President does not currently guide us. There is no indication that any of that "will strengthen us for our next 250 years" any more than it will guide us for the next 250 days. If, without endorsing any specific policy, Bush had tried to defend and honor the current President, he need not have changed one word of his article.

Odds were overwhelming, as George W Bush left the presidency and in the years following, that he would not be as bad an ex-President as he was a President. He has defied those odds.

Share |

Netanyahu's Blind Spot

The day after the world's foremost and now most popular terrorist group massacred Israelis, The Times of Israel noted

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.

The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.

Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.

The number of work permits granted Gazans ballooned prolifically through Netanyahu's five stints as Prime Minister and

Additionally, since 2014, Netanyahu-led governments have practically turned a blind eye to the incendiary balloons and rocket fire from Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel has allowed suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash to enter Gaza through its crossings since 2018, in order to maintain its fragile ceasefire with the Hamas rulers of the Strip.

This was no way to commit genocide and nothing an apartheid society or government would do. Moreover, the policy of propping up Hamas while undermining Fatah and the people it governed (on the West Bank) not only stoked the conditions which led to the 10/7 slaughter but also reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Islam. 

Aayan Hirsi Ali was raised as a devout Muslim in Kenya, escaped the culture of religious extremism to become a member of the Dutch Parliament, and is now an American citizen.  Seven years before the butchers of Gaza attacked Israel and tried to wipe out Jews and take other Jews as hostage, she described radical Islamism in a short, balanced video.  Yet its prescient message was completed ignored, with devastating consequences, by Prime Minister Netanyahu. She explained

If the Jihadists win and the hope for a reformed Islam dies, the rest of the world will pay a terrible price. The terror attacks in New York, London, Madrid and Paris and many other places are only a preview of what's to come. For this reason I believe that it's foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace. 

Individuals respond to their religious faith in various ways, so

When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case. There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world,. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses including, but not limited to, adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, and apostasy- that is, to leave Islam. Those who tolerate this intolerance do so at their peril.

That would be all manner of countries and political leaders globally. They have included, ironically, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose obsession with the Palestinian Authority has blinded him to the far greater danger always posed by the religious fanatics of Hamas. Evidently observing irony, Ali continued

As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberals and progressives- people who claim to make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities.

She recognized years ago, back during the Obama Administration, what virtually the entire world refuses to recognize even now.  Citing an example from her own experience, 
Ali emphasizes 

By labeling critical examination of Islam as inherently "racist," we make the chances of reformation far less likely. There are limits on criticism of Christianity at American universities or anywhere else, for that matter; why should there be of Islam?

There should be few if any restraints placed on criticism of any religion. Yet, even now- maybe especially now- criticism of Islam is suppressed as symptomatic of white supremacy or Western colonialism.  Further

Instead of contorting Western intellectual traditions so as not to offend our Muslim fellow citizens, we need to defend both those traditions and the Muslim dissidents who take great risks to promote them. We should support these brave men and women in every way possible.... These are the Muslims we should be supporting for our sake as much as for the sake of Islam.

Netanyahu defied this argument by propping up Hamas and squelching the less extreme leaders on the West Bank. If he had done otherwise, such as by realistically accommodating Fatah and isolating Hamas, the latter would have been weakened.

Ali concludes

If we do in fact support political, social and religious freedom, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity. We need to say to Muslims in the West: if you want to share in our societies, to share in those material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional.

"Islam is peace," lied President George W. Bush six days after a terrorist attack killed nearly 3,000 Americans in New York, New York.  Now, after a terrorist attack responsible for approximately 15 times as many individuals on a per capita basis, the myth that "Islam is peace" lives on, with no one permitted to mention the words "Islam" or "Muslim" in anything remotely related to the Middle East. 

But while Islam is not peace, it's not war, either, or at least as it's interpreted by peaceful Muslims.  Putting his lot in with the most fanatical individuals, Bibi Netanyahu decided not to distinguish violent Muslims from the millions of non-violent Muslims on the West Bank. It was a fundamental, unforced error which helped expose Israel to an unprecedented attack and severely undermined the safety and security of his country.

Share |

Why can't this question be asked to George W Bush? https://t.co/BOXP7dZlf6

— David Weissman (@davidmweissman) August 20, 2021

Reporter asks

The President also said there is no national security interest, no national interest, in Afghanistan. I'm a little confused by that. Can you explain why there is no national interest n Afghanistan, why did we have troops there for twenty years if there is no national interest in Afghanistan?

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby responds

We had a significant interest in being in Afghanistan, to our national security, twenty years ago. You've heard the President talk about this. The goals was to defeat, decimate Al Qaeda, to prevent Al Qaeda from launching attacks on the homeland from Afghanistan. We did that.

Mission accomplished! It was great that the USA invaded Afghanistan twenty years ago, and great that we've now left. It's a perfect world.

Obviously, a question of why soldiers were dispatched to Afghanistan twenty years ago with no national interest involved is much better posed to the President who actually dispatched those soldiers.

Kirby's answer, though, is revealing.  His argument rests on two propositions: a) the incursion twenty years ago prevented Al Qaeda from attacking the USA; b) the withdrawal will not reinvigorate Al Qaeda to the extent that it will be able to launch terrorist attacks it would not otherwise have been able to.

Either may be true, neither may be true, or one or the other may be. Kirby notes Al Qaeda is degraded, though Biden had (inaccurately) claimed it is "gone" from Afghanistan. (Note: age takes its toll.) That may be enough.

Or not.   As The New York Times summarized, "The Taliban are in power again without the help of Al Qaeda, and they have understood that they lost their government and their country in 2001 because of Al Qaeda. " However, the other is  "American intelligence capabilities in Afghanistan will be degraded with no military or diplomatic presence on the ground and with American troops and drones based hundreds of miles away."

Or perhaps both will prevail. The Taliban may tread carefully because Al Qaeda got the Taliban in trouble the first time around. Yet, whatever intelligence capabilities we had in Afghanistan we probably no longer have.  It's a situation which can confuse anyone, particularly a reporter who would ask today's Pentagon about a perceived national security interest 20 years before Joe Biden became President.

 

Share |

The Time Has Come

On Thursday's "Dateline White House," Nicole Wallace, White House communications Director for George W. Bush, led a discussion about an upcoming book by James Mattis. Mattis tendered to President Trump his resignation as Secretary of Defense late last year and part of the excerpt-which bears upon the role(s) of Wallace's former boss and his successor- shown by Wallace read

Nations with allies thrive, and those without them wither. Alone, America cannot protect our people and our economy. At this time, we can see storm clouds gathering. A polemicist's role is not sufficient for a leader.

Well-meaning, Wallace remarked

It is abundantly clear, if you take that statement from Mattis at the beginning with Mattis' letter- he resigned in a policy dispute with Donald Trump over the precipitous withdrawal of troops from Syria.... With that excerpt from the book, you have to me perhaps the most subtle but the most stinging rebuke of Donald Trump.

Yes and no, respectively. The American people, aside from a portion of individuals which voted against Donald Trump in 2016, do not do subtle. After Eugene Robinson (who mailed it in years ago) responded "exactly" and went on to say whatever he said, it was left to MattMiller to explain

I hate to be a contrarian. I have a great deal of respect for General Mattis; he's a great patriot. That essay left me thoroughly unimpressed, probably for the word you used- it was too subtle.

There are a lot of reasons that Donald Trump is President today. But one of the reasons is there are too many people that decided "it's not my fight to take him on: and I think Jim Mattis has decided it's not his fight to take him on.

Everyone in this country who knows how unfit Donald Trump is for this office has the responsibility to say something about it and do something about it but that responsibility is higher for those who served in that Administration and really know- really saw first-hand just how unfit he is for that office And I don't think this is the time for Jim Mattis to be subtle. I think this is time for him to tell the American public this man is not fit to be President and I know he probably thinks it inappropriate for him as a former military leader, and I know he's been marshaling his credibility, and his reputation, his integrity his entire life and this is the time to use it.

Miller was talking about James Mattis- but he might as well have been referring to someone else additionally. Wallace responded

Someone asks me once a week the same question about George W Bush- where's George Bush and why doesn't he same something? And I'm sure they ask Valerie Jarrett about Obama, too. And I mean, I take your point about people who have seen him up close- but you could say the same thing about HR McMaster, Dina Powell, Rex Tillerson ....

Bush is a former President and thus bears some responsibility. But it has been nine years since he left office, and President Trump's every move is not predicated on "what did President Bush do and how can I undo it?"

The Trump Administration has rolled back regulations on methane-emission rules. Predictably and justifiably, environmentalists and climate activists have denounced the move.  However, reaction from the fossil fuel industry has not been universally positive because it is a boon to oil and gas interests at the expense of natural gas. It is

the latest in a series of aggressive moves by the administration to roll back regulations imposed by the administration of former President Obama.

The EPA in June finalized plans for replacing Obama-era regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants. Administrator Andrew Wheeler also signed the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which gives individual states wide discretion to decide whether to require limited efficiency upgrades at individual coal-fired power plants.

Why, of course: Obama did it, and so it must be undone.  It's not enough for Barack Obama that candidate Trump and his surrogates routinely denounced the 44th President during the presidential campaign and that Trump's Administration, in its ideological extremism and commitment to corruption stands in stark contrast to "no-drama Obama."

President Trump seeks to implement policies through regulation and deregulation, Executive Orders and legislation as a means to rebuke Barack Obama. He is authorized to do, constrained only by constitution and law, and will do so, unconstrained. 

In an interview for the October issue of The Atlantic, James Mattis stated "There is a period in which I owe my silence. It’s not eternal. It’s not going to be forever." As Matt Miller told the MSNBC audience, "this is the time" for Mattis. But it's time also for someone else who has been  marshaling his credibility, reputation, and integrity, and it's a former President who is not short, a Texan, and bearing the name "Bush."

Share |

God's Will?

It was not strategically unwise, nor necessarily inaccuratewhen

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said she believes God wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election, the Christian Broadcasting Network reported on Wednesday.

"I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there," Sanders told CBN's David Brody and Jennifer Wishon, according to a transcript of the interview provided by CBN.

"I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about," Sanders added.

Shoring up support among white evangelicals is critical to Donald Trump's re-election effort, assuming there is one.  Nor can we mere mortals assume that God did not particularly want Donald Trump to become president. David Corn logically asks

Sarah Sanders on CBN: "[God] wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that’s why he’'s there."

So did God want @BarackObama to be president? Or did he take off those eight years?

Did he want the House Dems and @RepAOC to win in November? Or was he napping then?

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 30, 2019 

Most people are familiar with Newton's Third Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It emerged to apply to physics, but also may address American national politics. 

Barack Obama was elected partly in response to the eight years of George W. Bush, who waged the deadly and futile Iraq War opposed by Illinois state senator Barack Obama. Eight years later, "no drama" Obama was replaced by Donald Trump, whose racial views, personality, character, and corrupt business background were roughly 180 degrees from his successor.

So perhaps God did will the election of Barack Obama, followed by the election of Donald Trump and subsequent return of control of the House of Representatives to Democratic control. If rejection of Trump and of his right-wing policies continues, a Democrat will be elected President in 2020 and the Senate probably turn Democratic in 2022, when 12 Democratic, and 22 GOP, seats are expected to be up for grabs. Additionally, it might explain the investigations of the President, his family member(s) and associates threatening Trump's presidency.

With a Democratic Senate, House, and presidency, there likely would be passage of the bill now known as HR 1, which would curb corruption in all three branches of government, extend voting rights, and help take money out of politics.

Or maybe, as is generally believed, God has a sense of humor while sitting in heaven. King David probably had it right when he wrote (Psalm2:4-6, ESV)

4 He who sits in the heavens laughs;

    the Lord holds them in derision.

5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath,

    and terrify them in his fury, saying,

6 “As for me, I have set my King

    on Zion, my holy hill.”

Alternatively, when Sanders claimed "he wanted Donald Trump to become President," she was merely substituting "he" for Vladimir Putin, James Comey, and an intimidated media effectively in the tank for candidate Donald Trump.

Share |

Modest Suggestions

Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard University, has issued a call for a pre-emptive strike because

if you think Trump would never dare to fire Robert Mueller for filing charges against his associates, you still haven't understood his character. And if you think that Congress is sure to act when he does, you haven't been paying attentionfor the past several months.

He would like our ex-Presidents to gather together to  denounce Trump's "clear and present danger to the American republic" and for the two most recent presidents especially to speak out more forcefully than any political heavyweight has.

While Mounk's argument is sound, the criticism levelled at the incumbent by Bush and Obama was not insufficiently strong, but was indirect. Neither mentioned Trump's name, Bush because he was at the time campaigning for a GOP candidate (for Va. governor) and Obama because- well, because he's Barack Obama and having a spine has never been among his greatest strengths.

Nonetheless, it is clear

The people who are best placed to do this, depressingly, sit in the House and the Senate. All members of Congress who care about preserving our democracy (or protecting their constitutional prerogatives) must set out what they are going to do if Trump fires Robert Mueller or pardons the people he indicts. As Ian Bassin, the executive director of Protect Democracy, told me, “Ryan, McConnell, Pelosi, and Schumer must make crystal clear right now that firing Mueller or interfering with his investigation would be met with swift and forceful congressional action, including the opening of an impeachment inquiry against the president and the creation of an independent commission to investigate interference in the 2016 election.”

"Those like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker," maintains Mounk, "who have already bravely expressed their concerns about the president, need to champion efforts to limit the damage he can do right now."

Flake, Corker, and other conservative Republicans who support the President's right-wing agenda but recognize the threat Trump is to common decency and continuation of the planet need not resign or even vote against Trump's initiatives (though that would be great benefit to the Republic).  The following, as presented by Salon, is a list recently compiled by Jerrry Taylor of the Niskanen Center:

Making Trump’s tax returns public

Requiring Trump and all future presidents to put their assets in a blind trust

Demanding that Senate Republicans give more resources to the Intelligence Committee’s investigation of the Trump-Russia connection during the last election

Establishing a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to offer recommendations for electoral cybersecurity and protection against foreign disinformation campaigns

Reclaiming war powers that have been delegated in the past to the president

Enforcing the sanctions imposed by Congress on the Russian and allied business entities, which are now going unenforced

Refusing to vote for any legislation that has not gone through the normal process of committee hearings, markups and so on 

The five living ex-Presidents, congressional leadership, and the few Republican members of Congress who have expressed disapproval of President Trump's conduct need not call for his resignation or removal, block his legislative proposals, or do anything any reasonable person might consider excessive or partisan. Taylor's recommendations are non-ideological and would reinforce Congress' opposition to an imperial presidency and to efforts to upend American democracy.

Obviously, they will be ignored.









Share |

The 19th Republican President

On September 8, The New York Times' Peter Baker maintained

Now in the White House, President Trump demonstrated this past week that he still imagines himself a solitary cowboy as he abandoned Republican congressional leaders to forge a short-term fiscal deal with Democrats. Although elected as a Republican last year, Mr. Trump has shown in the nearly eight months in office that he is, in many ways, the first independent to hold the presidency since the advent of the current two-party system around the time of the Civil War.

After appearance of the article entitled "Bound  to No Party, Trump Upends 150 Years of Two-Party Rule," the journalist took some heat.

Not nearly enough.  A few days after Baker wallowed in foolishness, USA Today Nicole Hemmer pointed out

To the extent that the Trump administration has accomplished anything – and admittedly, the list is short – it is a list of standard-issue Republican policy: rolling back environmental protections, toughening sentencing guidelines for nonviolent offenders, prosecuting a phony war on voter fraud, gutting financial regulations.

The final round in the 2018 health care battle hadn't been written yet, but Hemmer could have noted that Trump is the embodiment of the President whom Grover Norquist cited when 5 1/2 years ago he advocated "a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen" because a GOP House and Senate would take the lead in enacting conservative legislation. The otherwise negative President would sign any bill which Ryan/McConnell would send him limiting access to affordable health care, and was especially enthusiastic about the one which would hit Democratic states hardest.

Trump could not have more accurately encapsulated the GOP ethos than with his September 13 tweet "With Irma and Harvey devastation, Tax Cuts and Tax Reform is needed more than ever before. Go Congress, go!"   With extraordinary human devastation, probably aided by climate change, upon the USA, he could think of little else except tax cuts for the wealthy- and, of course, a plan which would harm Democratic states more than Republican states.

Some independent, some maverick. But refutation of Baker's notion comes even apart from legislation or ideology.  On Monday, the President's account retweeted "NFL Player Pat Tillman joined US Army in 2002. He was killed in action 2004. He fought 4 our country/freedom." The tweets were accompanied by a photograph of Tillman in uniform and the hashtags "Stand for Our Anthem" and "Boycott NFL."

In a statement provided to CNN, Tillman's widow Marie wrote

As a football player and soldier, Pat inspired countless Americans to unify. Pat's service, along with that of every man and woman's service, should never be politicized in a way that divides us. We are too great of a country for that. Those that serve fight for the American ideals of freedom, justice and democracy. They and their families know the cost of that fight. I know the very personal costs in a way I feel acutely every day.

The very action of self-expression and the freedom to speak from one's heart — no matter those views — is what Pat and so many other Americans have given their lives for. Even if they didn't always agree with those views.

However, Donald Trump is not alone among Republican Presidents in exploiting the memory of Pat Tillman.  When the Administration during the 2004 campaign began using and abusing the killing, Pat's father Patrick stated "the Administration clearly was using this case for its own political reasons. This cover-up started within minutes of Pat's death, and it started at high levels. This is not something that (lower-ranking) people in the field do." Pat's mother remarked "They attached themselves to his virtue and then threw him under the bus. They had no regard for him as a person. He'd hate to be used for a lie."






Peter Baker can weave his own, comforting fantasy.  Nevertheless, Donald Trump, other than being incomparably corrupt, is not an outlier in his Party.   He is a Republican's Republican applauding or proposing extreme right-wing initiatives, virtually all with the goal of pushing wealth upward. It's what Republicans do.









Share |

Daddy Nation

Joy Ann-Reid appeared Tuesday on "The Daily Show" and together with host Trevor Noah expressed the conventional wisdom about presidential leadership. That which passes for wisdom spans the political spectrum from far right to far left and, presumably, is especially strong among independent, non-ideological individuals. Noah remarked

Donald Trump is currently traveling as president, counseling the victims of Hurricane Harvey. Could this not be- could this not be the moment to where he pivots to presidential, and unifies the nation duing its time of crisis?.... This is a valid question.

After chuckling, Reid responded

Only if he goes into Trump Tower, locks himself in, sends out a different person that isn't Donald Trump, that his name is Donald Trump, who is a completely different person, and maybe that person can pivot and be the president we need. Donald Trump is 71. Do you know any 7-year-olds? I do. They are what they are. They're not going to change. He is that guy. 

The ellipsis in Noah's comment replaces "You guys are all assholes- every single one of  you." Evidently, Noah is unaware that the audience laughter which annoyed him reflects his own perspective (and that of Reid) that we actually want the President to be "presidential" as he- and most others- define it.

But as Charlie Pierce explains in criticizing Glenn Thrush's yearning that  President Trump "recapture some of the unifying power of his office he has squandered in recent weeks

This is how Ronald Reagan skated on the crimes of the Iran-Contra affair. In Mark Hertsgaard's study of the press in the Reagan era, On Bended Knee, Ben Bradlee, the hero editor of Watergate, says flatly that another "failed presidency" would be disastrous, and that Katherine Graham, the hero publisher of Watergate, "called for a retreat" in her newspaper's aggressiveness in the wake of Watergate and the rise of the Reagan Administration. You can see this at work as well in TheNew York Times's decision to bury the story of the George W. Bush administration's illegal surveillance program so as "not to affect" the 2004 election, even though that is precisely what that sort of story is supposed to do.

This is more than mere deference to power. A lot of institutions are powerful but still subject to an aggressive press and a skeptical public. But the presidency has grown to the point where a failed president shakes the comfort zone down to its foundations. Too many people want a unifying Daddy in the White House so much that, if a president is not up to the job, those people will create that unifying Daddy out of shoddy material and wishful thinking. As Hertsgaard wrote, reflecting on the presidency of Ronald Reagan:

      "…[it was] a time when the national political debate was dominated by a bundle of ideas  that almost without     exception were contradicted by objective facts, common sense, or  both."

We don't even have to go back some 30 years to the dramatically overrated President Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).   We have an example in this century alone, when in the wake of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, President Bush climbed onto a fire truck at Ground Zero, put his arm around a retired firefighter, and spoke to the crowd through a bullhorn, at which time

The crowd began chanting “U.S.A., U.S.A.” As the cheers died down, Bush started speaking. Someone from the crowd yelled that they couldn’t hear the president. Bush, with his arm still draped around Beckwith, shouted into his bullhorn, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

The president’s words were met with whooping and hollering from the crowd.

The media swooned. The politicians swooned. The country swooned. And the Bush Administration made its dishonest argument to the nation, now fertile ground for tales of aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium powder, and "weapons of mass destruction."  In the  end, the Administration launched an ultimately disastrous war in Iraq. Compounding the error, to this very day the federal government is partnered with Saudi Arabia, the nation giving birth to most  of  the 9/11/01 terrorists, in a bombing campaign which has caused the death of approximately 8,000 Yemenis and the displacement of millions.

"Be careful what you wish for" is a useful aphorism. Presidents Reagan and Bush 43 were both great unifying figures in times of crisis, and we are the worst off for it.  Fortunately- whether or not because of  age- whatever unifying power President Trump, a would-be autocrat, may exhibit in the next few days will not last, and we will be the better off because of  it.

Share |

Republicans Know How To Win

Through tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's phone calls, declassifed in 2013, we learned of Lyndon Johnson's chicanery, Richard Nixon's utter disregard for his country, and Hubert Humphrey's extraordinary integrity.  More significantly- at this moment- the 2013 article from BBC News throws some light onto the upcoming presidential election. David Taylor wrote

It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign.

He therefore set up a clandestine back-channel involving Anna Chennault, a senior campaign adviser.

At a July meeting in Nixon's New York apartment, the South Vietnamese ambassador was told Chennault represented Nixon and spoke for the campaign. If any message needed to be passed to the South Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, it would come via Chennault.

In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared.

Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.

So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out.

He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election."

(President Johnson found out but divulged the information only to Democratic nominee Humphrey because the information had been gleaned solely from the FBI wiretap of the South Vietnamese ambassador. Humphrey, having been told he would win the election, withheld the information because it would disrupt the country. Nixon won by less than 1% and as President expanded the war.)

Fast-forward 12 years to the events of 1980, which investigator Robert Parry wrote about five days ago under the headline "The Modern History of 'Rigged' US Elections."  He explained

President Jimmy Carter was seeking reelection and trying to negotiate release of 52 American hostages then held in revolutionary Iran. Ronald Reagan’s campaign feared that Carter might pull off an “October Surprise” by bringing home the hostages just before the election. So, this historical mystery has been: Did Reagan’s team take action to block Carter’s October Surprise?

The testimonial and documentary evidence that Reagan’s team did engage in a secret operation to prevent Carter’s October Surprise is now almost as overwhelming as the proof of the 1968 affair regarding Nixon’s Paris peace talk maneuver.

That evidence indicates that Reagan’s campaign director William Casey organized a clandestine effort to prevent the hostages’ release before Election Day, after apparently consulting with Nixon and Kissinger and aided by former CIA Director George H.W. Bush, who was Reagan’s vice presidential running mate.

By early November 1980, the public’s obsession with Iran’s humiliation of the United States and Carter’s inability to free the hostages helped turn a narrow race into a Reagan landslide. When the hostages were finally let go immediately after Reagan’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981, his supporters cited the timing to claim that the Iranians had finally relented out of fear of Reagan.

Bolstered by his image as a tough guy, Reagan enacted much of his right-wing agenda, including passing massive tax cuts benefiting the wealthy, weakening unions and creating the circumstances for the rapid erosion of the Great American Middle Class.

Behind the scenes, the Reagan administration signed off on secret arms shipments to Iran, mostly through Israel, what a variety of witnesses described as the payoff for Iran’s cooperation in getting Reagan elected and then giving him the extra benefit of timing the hostage release to immediately follow his inauguration.

We know that Trump operative and career dirty trickster Roger Stone contended on August 8, 2016 that he has "actually communicated" with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who has leaked DNC e-mails which the intelligence community has strongly suggested were hacked by force(s) associated witht the Russian government.  But even five days ago Parry himself did not make the connection that, according to Michael Crowley, Senator Harry

Reid himself has led the charge since late August, when he sent Comey an open letter imploring the FBI to investigate what he called “evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.” That letter cited a Trump campaign adviser who traveled to Moscow in July and who, according to Reid, “met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals” there. That was almost surely a reference to Carter Page, an investment banker who has worked in Moscow and whom Trump has publicly named as a foreign adviser. Page has denied meeting with sanctioned Kremlin officials in Moscow, where he delivered economic remarks at a think tank. The Trump campaign says Carter plays a minimal advisory role.

History, it is claimed, repeats itself. Still, neither Taylor, Parry, or Politico's Crowley even mentioned the Brooks Brothers' riot which stopped vote counting in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 2000 nor in 2004 vote switching, pre-punched ballots, voter suppression, and hacking of the touchscreen voting machines in Ohio by controllers of the SmarTech computers.

Donald Trump whines about the election being "rigged" and diverts attention from GOP voter suppression. But through the decades, the Republican Party has practiced in close elections a a subtler, more sophisticated, and more realistic effort to subvert the election process than he imagines.

Share |

Price Still Not Paid

Speaking in Sioux City, Iowa in January, Donald Trump made one of his most telling remarks when he boasted “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters."

In a similar vein (even if not widely understood as such), Trump last year had commented “When I drink my little wine — which is about the only wine I drink — and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed.”  In one fell swoop, Trump had mistaken regeneration for communion and trivialized the latter, patronizingly dismissing one of its elements as "my little cracker."

Trump had thus nearly confirmed his earlier statement, having symbolically stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shot somebody, and losing few voters.

He may be doing it again.  Still a work in progress, Trump's immigration policy is nothing if not muddled now that he speaks of a "softening" but still supports his big, beautiful wall.

There is a strategic calculation taking place not only in seeming- maybe- to move to the center, but also in keeping anyone who is paying attention from understanding exactly what he believes about illegal immigration. However, there is one statement Trump has made in the last few days, while he appears to be working out his values in public, which harkens back to confidence that he could shoot someone or make a remark utterly ignorant of Christianity and still not lose any votes.

On Monday night on GOP TV, Trump explained

As far as everybody else, we're going to go through the process,  What people don't know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country. Bush, the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I'm going to do the same thing.

Trump's campaign was based- we were told by it- on the understanding that the system is rigged, the country is broken, Bush and Obama were wrong about practically everything, and we must "make America great again."   Now he's going to do the same thing as Obama whose, Trump accurately points out, has been quite active in evicting illegal immigrants from the USA. He will act on immigration, he promises, similarly to the Kenyan-born president who founded ISIL, who "doesn't want to know about" terrorism, and "is more angry at me" (than) at the shooter" who murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando. (Below, view Trump adviser Sarah Huckabee Sanders inadvertently endorsing the Obama immigration policy.)








Donald Trump may be the liberal Ted Cruz argued he is. Or he may be what he appeared to be, a hateful demagogue (a loving demagogue?).   Alternatively, he all of the above or none of the above, reminiscent of answers to multiple choice questions in secondary school.   Within striking distance of the presidency, however, Trump most clearly is someone who has not paid the electoral price for things he has done as a businessman and said as a presidential candidate.   If you ever see him on Fifth Avenue with a firearm, promptly seek shelter.








Share |

Rudy Still Rudy

Slate's Jeremy Stahl believes Rudy Giuliani is getting a bad rap from "some hyperventilating on Twitter from outlets saying that Giuliani was ignoring 9/11."    Stating "his phrasing was misleading," the ex-mayor  "did not rewrite history to delete the worst foreign attack on U.S. soil since the War of 1812."

Stahl argues Giuliani

credited (vice-presidential nominee and former U.S. Representative) Pence’s work on the Patriot Act with preventing more attacks before pivoting to his remarks about eight years without another attack. Giuliani clearly meant there wasn't an attack during the 2001–2009 period after 9/11 and not the entirety of the eight years before Obama took office. Again, this was a poorly worded, misleading statement, but Giuliani clearly did not literally mean that 9/11 didn’t happen.

For whatever reason, media outlets reporting the remark as a gaffe have avoided replaying the remark in its context. So, too, has Stahl avoided that context, although it's easier to understand why he has done so. But as sportscaster Werner Wolf often put it, "let's go to the videotape," in this case the YouTube video below in which the ex-mayor is seen remarking

Mike Pence understands this from his time both as the Foreign Affairs Committee, both on the Foreign Affairs Committee, from his very timely visit which I remember to Ground Zero when we were in desperate need of help he was there  and from his work on the Judiciary Committee where he helped fashion the Patriot Act.  By the way, under those eight years, before Obama came along, we didn’t have a successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when [Hillary] Clinton and Obama got into office.







If Giuliani had been crediting primarily Representative Mike Pence rather than President George W. Bush with preventing a terrorist attack, he wouldn't have said "by the way" and "before Obama came along." Giuliani was clearly attributing the absence of in an eight year (not "seven-and-a-half years" or "7+ years") to the Oval Office.

No one believes that the mayor of New York City on 9/11/01 (who did a lousy job both preparing the city for the possibility of a dramatic terrorist attack and managing the aftermath) forgot the events of 9/11; any such reference obviously is meant to be ironic.   There is a reason Senator Biden once quipped "I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence — a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There’s nothing else! There’s nothing else!”








For most, failure is nothing to brag about; Hillary Clinton does not go on about her e-mail savvy.  But similar discretion never stopped Rudy Giuliani from working tirelessly to capitalize on the worst attack in United States history for his own political gain.  He never forgot the events of 15 years ago but is only doing what he does best:  manipulating pain for gain. It's the same old Rudy.

Share |

Rock On, Mr.President

Maybe it was the unfortunate decision for these five individuals to hold hands (no maybe about it). But credit should go to Joe Biden. Even an aging Protestant has to admit that the Vice-President, the only Catholic or non-Protestatnt on the stage, knew best how to behave upon hearing a verse of"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" sung by a choir at the memorial service for the five slain Dallas police officers.

As the video below displays, the goofy white guy is joyously swaying to the words of the great Civil War abolitionist poem written by Julie Ward Howe to the tune of John Brown's Body. So, too- albeit with more restraint and rhythm- is President Obama. First Lady Michelle Obama and Mrs. Bush, seemingly appropriately amused by Mr. Bush, are allowing him to perform his little dance at the funeral service.







Vice-President Biden gave the hymn the respect it deserves. He can be forgiven for appearing uncomfortable, inasmuch as he was in the presence of a former two-term President who was smiling, almost laughing, while getting a big kick out of a song whose original lyrics were the following:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightining of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him!
be jubilant, my feet! Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Share |

Still Stonewalling

President Obama is still disregarding the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, and 9/11 widow and activist Kristen Breitweiser is not amused.  She writes in the Huffington Post

Recently, it has become increasingly clear to me why my government has fought against such transparency, accountability, and revelation of the truth regarding the 9/11 attacks.

There are 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry of Congress (an investigation into the U.S. government intelligence failures prior to 9/11) that have remained classified and hidden away from the American public by both the Bush and Obama Administrations. These 28 pages allegedly prove that the Saudis had a controlling hand in funding the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 innocent people....

Unfortunately, the 28 pages aren’t the only example of the U.S. government protecting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to the detriment of the 9/11 families.

For the past 15 years, the 9/11 families have also tried to hold the KSA accountable in a court of law. Most recently, the KSA was dismissed from the 9/11 case on grounds of foreign sovereign immunities protection under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

The FSIA was clearly not created with the intent that nations that sponsor mass terrorism should get away with it scot-free. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has wholeheartedly supported this perverted and warped use of the FSIA by the Saudis. In short, it seems that as long as you are an ally of the U.S. and not a named state-sponsor of terrorism, apparently you can underwrite all the mass murder you want and get away with it.

Obviously, the 9/11 families have fought very hard against the Saudis misuse of the FSIA and their dismissal from our case. In fact, several times we have petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of our case. Each time, the U.S. Department of Justice (at the direction of President Obama) has written “Letters of Interest” recommending that the Supreme Court deny hearing our case thereby allowing the Saudis to remain excused from our case via their FSIA shield...

Finding ourselves blocked by the president with regard to the release of the 28 pages, and with regard to the Supreme Court reviewing the dismissal of the KSA as a key defendant in our case, we turned to the U.S. Congress for help. And Congress answered our call with a vital piece of anti-terror legislation called JASTA(Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act).

JASTA ensures that no nation (including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) that funds terrorism will be able to use the FSIA as a shield to their culpability. JASTA is the legislative response to the Saudi’s misuse of the FSIA in our 9/11 court case. JASTA removes FSIA protections from the KSA and, as a result, the 9/11 families will finally be able to have our day in court against the Saudis....

Unsurprisingly, as soon as JASTA was set to pass with Senate approval, the shadowy Saudi-protectionist hand of the U.S. government, once again, reached out to block our progress. A whisper campaign with no fingerprints was dispensed to kill JASTA.

And, those whispers sounded something like this: if JASTA passes, the Saudis will bankrupt our economy by withdrawing $800 billion worth of T-bonds, and even worse, if JASTA passes, the Saudis will stop protecting and sharing intelligence information with the U.S. and leave us vulnerable to an ISIS attack.

So, it would seem that the same group of people who fought against the release of the 28 pages, and our case being heard by the Supreme Court, are at it once again, this time opposing JASTA and labeling it a diplomatic disaster.

Breitweiser's group is lauded by the "information & activism hub" 9/11.org, which is especially energized by the need to force release of the 28 page part 4, titled "Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters."   Therefore, with an interest in both earned benefits and the federal government's apathy toward families directly affected by the 9/11/01 attacks, yesterday I attended a "town hall" meeting featuring my U.S. representative in an age-restricted development in Southampton Township, NJ.

Later, I sent to his office an e-mail explaining that at the close of the meeting, I spoke very briefly to the congressman, who was unaware of the "28 pages" and pointing out that

After he read the 28 pages, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) in July of 2014 stated that until the American people have the "full picture of what actually happened, the intelligence picture, "it will be difficult to "prevent another 9/11 from happening." He went on to say "I want to challenge all the Congressmen who have not read the 28 pages and have the ability to read these 28 pages to do it for your constituents.... every Congressman needs to see these 28 pages."

Noting that Representative MacArthur, a Republican, has "introduced legislation to protect and preserve the National September 11 Memorial in NYC," I urged him to obtain permission to read the 28-page section. However, as Breitwer detailed, there are several (insufficient) reasons that the Obama Administration, now complicit in the  cover-up begun by President Bush, won't do the honorable thing.

Breitweiser charges President Obama, who has claimed "the most transparent Administration in history," believes "it is more important to support and protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rather than Americans who were victims of a terrorist attack."   If that is true- as it appears to be- the 9/11/ widows, Representative Massie and the others dedicated to transparency have a Cavanal-caliber hill to climb.















Share |