Condi Rice’s role on 9/11: How did she escape blame?

condoleezza-rice

Americans commemorated recently the 15th year since the 9/11 attacks.

It was a life-changer for many of us. It certainly changed the way we view our place in the world, and whether we are as “safe” as we thought we were.

There’s been plenty of blame tossed around in the decade-and-a-half since that terrible day.

Lots of reputations have been soiled and sullied.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet all have taken their share of hits over what happened.

One person, though, skated through it. And for the life of me, I am baffled over how this happened.

We had a national security adviser on duty. Condoleezza Rice was that person. Rice’s task, as her job title declares, was to protect our nation. It was her duty to ensure that we remained alert and vigilant against any threat.

On Sept. 11, 2001, barely nine months into the Bush administration’s first term, it all fell apart.

Why didn’t Condi Rice take the hit? How did she escape the blame that was leveled at so many of her colleagues?

As near as I can discern, her national reputation remains largely intact.

The Afghan War that developed shortly after the attack is still under way. We’ve gotten out of Iraq, ending a war that President Bush started based on false information about Iraq’s non-existent role in the 9/11 attack.

Still, of all the finger-pointing — at Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Powell, Tenet and the rest — no one has laid a hand on the individual, Condi Rice, whose primary responsibility was to ensure that this kind of attack doesn’t occur.

She failed.

How is that she’s never been held accountable for that failure?

Tax returns, Trump, tax returns … release them!

21wed1web-master768

I am taking a bit of a leap here in challenging the New York Times on an editorial … with which I happen to agree.

The Times says Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump needs to release his tax returns. He needs to do what candidates of both parties have done since 1976. There’s no law requiring him to release the returns; it’s merely been customary for candidates to do so to reveal to the public just how they conduct their personal financial business.

Here’s the editorial. Take a look. The Times raises excellent points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/mr-trumps-stupid-excuses-on-taxes.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

What the Times missed, though, is a simple point: It didn’t challenge Trump’s assertion that he’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

The audit is the lame excuse he and his campaign team — mainly his sons — have used to keep the information from public information. The IRS, though, says an audit doesn’t preclude releasing the tax returns.

More to the point, though, is that Trump hasn’t even provided evidence that the IRS even is conducting an audit. He hasn’t given us any indication of a letter, or a notice, or a note tossed in over the transom alerting him of the audit.

He is asking us to take his word for it that the IRS is conducting an audit.

All of this is a shameful, disgraceful display of hypocrisy and duplicity from someone who for years demanded proof of President Obama’s place of birth and his academic records … not that any of it matters to those who have backed his candidacy.

OK, Donald Trump. The time has long passed for you to come clean and do what you have demanded of Barack Obama.

Wealth an issue in this run for the White House

ar-140629403

One candidate for the U.S. presidency, the Republican, keeps harping on his “fabulous” wealth.

Donald J. Trump likes to boast about all the dough he has made in business, erecting tall buildings and getting his name slapped on the sides of them. It’s that boasting and braggadocio that make the release of his income tax returns a campaign issue … that and the questions about whether he’s paying his fair share of taxes and with which foreign governments he’s been doing business.

Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, on the other hand, has said a number of other things about her wealth. She has claimed to have been “dead broke” when she and her husband exited the White House in January 2001.Then she said she isn’t “truly well off.”

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/06/not-truly-well-off-mme-secretary/

She’s pretty damn “well off” now. Collecting six-figure speaking fees every time she or her husband, the former president, stands before a microphone adds up quickly.

Now, am I as concerned about her wealth as I am about Trump’s stubborn refusal to release his tax returns? Not at all.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their returns. The public has seen where and how they have acquired their wealth. They haven’t enriched themselves through the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Global Initiative.

Yes, the “dead broke” statement was troubling. You know and I know she and her husband weren’t “dead broke” in the way many Americans understand the meaning of the term. Heck, they were able to secure financing to purchase a high-end home after they left the White House; lenders don’t dole out money to those who are “dead broke,” if you know what I mean.

However, her financial portfolio is an open book. Hillary Clinton’s role in the various works of the foundation and the CGI have been scrutinized to the nth degree.

Trump, on the other hand, remains a man of mystery regarding his supposedly vast holdings.

He keeps bragging about them. In public. For all to hear.

Inquiring minds want to know the truth behind the bluster.

Trump’s wealth called into question once more

gop-2016-trump

Wait a second!

How can a presidential candidate who keeps crowing about his fabulous wealth spend a six-figure amount of dough to pay off legal debts from a charity he founded.

That’s what the Washington Post has reported in connection with Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee.

The Post reports that Trump dipped into his charity foundation’s pool. He snatched $258,000 out of it to pay off some legal bills he had accrued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Doesn’t that betray a trust he made to the donors of his charity? Is this the way to spend money dedicated to do “good work”?

And how does someone with the kind of wealth he keeps telling he has need to use charitable foundation money in the first place?

The Post has compiled a thorough investigation of the story. Trump’s campaign, of course, declared it was full of errors. No one has specified the errors, or even said the story is false.

We all know, of course, that Trump can prove his wealth simply by releasing his tax returns to the public as other presidential candidates have been doing for the past 40 years.

Oh … wait.

Panhandle Day: Does it produce tangible benefit?

texas-state-capitol-austin-usa-17

I’ve long wondered about a Texas Legislature tradition.

It involves various regions of our state sending “delegations” to Austin during the Legislature’s regular session. They pack themselves into various modes of transportation and go to the state capital. They schmooze with their legislators. They slap themselves on the back. They enjoy meals and an adult beverage or three with each other.

They lobby their legislators about their regions’ needs.

The Texas Panhandle does it every other year. The Amarillo Chamber of Commerce is a key partner in this venture. Chamber bosses proclaim it a “success.” They have their voices heard.

I’ve been watching this spectacle from a distance for the past two-plus decades here in the Panhandle; I watched it — also from a distance — during the nearly 11 years I lived in the Golden Triangle.

Panhandle Day occurs every legislative session, along with Golden Triangle Day. Austin sends a delegation; so does San Antonio; same for the Metroplex; Houston-Galveston sends one.

My wonder involves how we measure the success of these schmooze-fests.

In my nearly 33 years living in Texas, I have yet to see an accounting of how these events actually benefit the region that sends these delegations.

Sometime next year, the Panhandle is going to gather up several dozen business, civic and local political leaders. They’ll go to Austin and talk about regional issues with state Reps. John Smithee and Four Price, both of Amarillo, and with state Sen. Kel Seliger, also of Amarillo.

Is it me or does anyone else wonder if we’re getting the bang for the buck we’re spending with the public money that’s spent sending these folks to Austin?

Is there tangible legislation being enacted? Are these groups able to persuade legislators to send money our way? Do certain regions of the state have more pull than others?

Are these “days” that the Legislature sets aside for various regions worth the effort?

Hey, man. I’m just wondering. I also am hoping to get a conversation started well in advance of the next Panhandle Day back-slap session.

Where is the fear in Europe of terrorists?

train

A journey to Germany and The Netherlands didn’t produce many surprises, truth be told.

My wife and I know they are beautiful countries. We know that many — if not most — citizens of both countries speak English. We know that they generally like Americans.

We also assumed something about their view of international terrorists that might have been a bit overblown.

I, at least, had this notion that Europeans were outwardly, demonstrably fearful of terrorists. The media have portrayed the continent’s mood as wary, bordering on angry at the refugees who have gone there while fleeing oppression in the Middle East.

Donald Trump keeps talking here at home about that fear and he’s seeking to promote more of it among American voters as he seeks the presidency.

But here’s what we discovered.

We boarded a speedy train in Nuremberg, Germany on Sept. 10 bound for Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

We saw our share of Muslim women with their heads covered according to Islamic custom. Many of them were accompanied, I presume, by their spouses and children.

They sat quietly as the train sped toward Frankfurt and then on to Amsterdam.

Funny. They behaved, oh, quite normally.

The return trip on Sept. 14? Same thing. We changed trains in Hannover, Germany, where the terminal also had a number of Muslims scurrying about in search of their connection.

I didn’t spot a single shady-looking character among ’em.

Oh, and one more thing.

Not a single security agent demanded to rifle through my wife’s purse or demanded that I empty my pockets. Were the terminals devoid of security? Oh, no. We noticed the video cameras peering down on everyone as they walked through. We also saw our share of heavily armed uniformed personnel making sure all was well.

This element — the lack of hands-on enhanced security — proved to be the biggest surprise of our vacation. It wasn’t nearly as intense as I expected it to be, given the terror tragedy that has befallen Europe ever since 9/11.

I must say that it was a pleasant one, indeed.

Is there something to be said, therefore, about our politicians in the States — and one prominent individual in particular — who keep stoking the embers of fear?

‘Room service’ in hospital? Really?

trump-campaign-signals-possible-shift-on-immigration-stance-1471865686-3208

Donald J. Trump needs to get out more.

A man is arrested for setting off bombs in New York City and in New Jersey. The police inflict non-life threatening injuries on the guy in a shootout.

The suspect is taken to a local hospital.

The response from the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States?

The suspect is going to get “room service” at the hospital.

Room service. At a hospital.

In Trump’s world, hospital “room service” is a perk.

Good … grief.

Downtown changing its nature, one resident at a time

14291879_1270291946323983_5049468187849995869_n

I’ve been enjoying the changes I see occurring in downtown Amarillo.

We all know about the construction underway: the Xcel office building, the Embassy Suites Hotel, the parking garage.

Another element is taking shape. It’s potentially the deal-maker for downtown’s revival.

It involves the continued development of urban residences.

The recently Lofts on 10th have received some recognition for their creativity. Other residences have been completed in an old warehouse not far from City Hall. The Eagle Center at the corner of Seventh and Tyler has housed downtown residents for years.

Where does this end? Does all this portend a growing new demographic among Amarillo’s population, which now sits at 200,000 … and growing?

My wife and I recently returned from Germany and The Netherlands, where one at times is hard-pressed to find single-family dwellings in the middle of great cities. There, urban life is a long-standing reality.

It has led to the “gentrification” of many neighborhoods, according to our German friends, who note that formerly run-down neighborhoods have become places that ooze with charm.

Sure, gentrification comes at a price. In many American cities, it drives up the cost of real estate and makes such property less affordable to those who cannot pay the cost of living in high-dollar downtown lofts or condos.

Amarillo’s transition — as I see it — appears to be well under way.

The ballpark construction will begin soon. Xcel Energy’s new office complex is entering its final stage of construction. The convention hotel will open soon, as will the parking garage.

Amarillo voters will get a chance to vote on seven propositions aimed at financing several key construction projects; one of them involves the Civic Center, which many foes of the ballpark said needs dramatic improvement.

It’s invigorating to see the changes that are afoot in a city that at times has resisted it.

Bush 41 voting for Hillary

bush

This probably isn’t nearly as spectacular a political story as some are making it out to be.

Still, it’s an important development in the presidential campaign of 2016.

Former President George H.W. Bush — aka Poppy Bush, Bush 41 and Bush the Elder — has told a member of a leading Democratic family that he’s going to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton over Republican Donald J. Trump.

The person who “outed” Bush 41 happens to be Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Maryland — and the eldest child of the late Robert F. Kennedy.

Sure, it’s an important story. President Bush is as “establishment Republican” as you can get. He served in many high-profile government capacities before being elected president in 1988. Now he’s going to vote for the wife of the man who defeated him for re-election in 1992. Bush’s forsaking of Trump’s candidacy speaks to the reluctance among many Republicans to back their party’s nominee.

But hold on. Is this a jaw-dropper? Hardly.

President Bush is a dedicated family man who loves his children more than life itself. When a politician attacks the kids, as Trump did this year en route to the GOP nomination, it’s only natural for Dad to take it personally.

Trump called former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush “Low Energy Jeb” and chided him repeatedly for his failure to do better against Trump in the GOP primary campaign.

Then there is this: Trump said the younger President Bush — George W. — “lied” the country into going to war in Iraq. He accused W. of fabricating the pretext for taking out Saddam Hussein by saying he had “weapons of mass destruction” and that he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Setting aside whether one believes Trump’s assertions about W.’s veracity — and they do ring true to me — it’s totally understandable that the first President Bush would hold those utterances against the man who made them.

With 49 days to go before the election, it remains to be seen whether Poppy’s plan to vote for Hillary will bring other disaffected establishment Republicans along.

As for George H.W. Bush’s apparent defection … I do get it.

RNC boss seeks dictator status

1474224625553

I feel the need to revisit briefly an idiotic notion by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

He’s issued a warning to former GOP presidential candidates that they might “face consequences” if they seek the presidency in the future if they continue to refuse to back this year’s nominee, Donald J. Trump.

My question simply is this: Who in the hell does Priebus think he is?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/18/candidates-who-dont-back-trump-may-not-be-allowed-to-run-again-rnc-chairman-says.html

Priebus said potential future candidates such as, say, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might find some insurmountable obstacles if they seek the party nomination in 2020.

Wait a second! Didn’t former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz face the scorn of her partisans for allegedly rigging the party nomination to favor Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Priebus now insists that the former GOP presidential candidates line up behind Trump … or else face the consequences.

That is a ridiculous and gratuitously ham-handed approach to pre-determining who the party’s next nominee ought to be.

The GOP presidential field signed a pledge to support whoever the party nominated for president. The pledge, though, isn’t legally binding. It’s not even politically binding, given that neither major party has a rule requiring blind loyalty.

Chairman Priebus is exhibiting delusions of grandeur if he thinks he can hand out “consequences” for future candidates who don’t abide by his wishes.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience