Presidency full of ‘smart’ people

donald_trump_lies

Donald J. Trump said he doesn’t need daily intelligence/military briefings because, “Like, I’m a smart person.”

Uh, Mr. President-elect, the office has been held by a lot of “smart” occupants, all of whom have accepted the National Security Council’s daily briefings.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-intelligence-briefings-smart-person-82553641164c#.yz1bqyygn

Trump told Fox News’s Chris Wallace that “my generals” get daily briefings, that the vice president-elect, Mike Pence, gets them, too.

Here’s part of what he told Wallace: Trump said he gets briefings “when I need it” because “I don’t have to be told — you know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years. Could be eight years — but eight years. I don’t need that.”

He’s going to concentrate fully on making America “great again.”

Oh … brother.

Cyber-security honcho is strangely silent

917ede1f-a320-44bf-83d4-3306b3597441

There was a time — about a half-dozen years ago — when the then-speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, John Boehner, R-Ohio, called on my congressman, Clarendon Republican Mac Thornberry, to head up a cyber-security task force in Congress.

If memory serves, Boehner tasked Thornberry with finding ways to improve our cyber network protection against the kind of things that have been happening of late: hackers seeking to disrupt the U.S. electoral process. Those pesky Russians have been fingered as the major culprits in this cyber issue; President Obama has ordered a full review of what we’ve learned; Donald J. Trump has dismissed the CIA analysis as “ridiculous.”

So, where is the one-time GOP cyber-security expert on all of this? He should be a major participant in the public discussion. I haven’t seen or heard a thing from the veteran GOP lawmaker since the Russian hacking story hit the fan.

I checked Thornberry’s website to look for a statement from the congressman about what he thinks regarding this matter. I didn’t find anything. I looked at the link titled “Press Releases” and came up empty; I went through the “Issues” link, nothing there, either. I scanned the list of Thornberry’s essays on this and that and couldn’t find a commentary about recent events relating to cyber security.

Here’s the link to his website. Take a look.

http://thornberry.house.gov/

Thornberry is a busy man, now that he’s chairing the House Armed Services Committee. He’s not superhuman.

However, Speaker Boehner gave Thornberry a big responsibility to craft a cyber-security policy that — one could surmise — was supposed to protect our secrets against foreign agents’ snooping eyes.

I’m wondering about the status of whatever it was that my congressman delivered to the speaker and whether any of his recommendations will become part of the cyber-security solution.

From major threat to potential ally?

putin_trump_and_i_are-a2fab9090657f98b004db89c40af5dfd

It seems like yesterday. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president of the United States, said Russia had emerged as the most dangerous “global geopolitical threat” to the United States.

Many of us scoffed at that notion. It seemed so, oh, Cold War-ish. I mean, c’mon, Mitt! We won the Cold War. The Soviet Union vanished in 1991. Democracy was returning, albeit in dribs and drabs, to a new Russia. Isn’t that what many of us said and/or thought?

Well, it turns out Mitt was right. His critics were wrong. Russia has sought to do a lot of harm to the world and, quite possibly, to the U.S. electoral process.

But wait! This new Republican Party is being led by someone with an entirely different view of the Big Bear. Donald J. Trump is about to become president. He is forming his government. He is building his Cabinet.

Who is the new president apparently about to select as the nation’s secretary of state, its top diplomat, its foreign policy vicar? It appears to be a fellow named Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil — and a close ally of the nation Mitt ID’d as America’s top threat.

Exxon Mobil has extensive business ties in Russia. Tillerson is said to be friends with Putin.

For that matter, let’s recall that Trump has said some flattering things about the man who once ran the Soviet Union’s spy agency, the hated KGB. He called him a “strong leader”; he accepted Putin’s praise with gratitude; he invited Russia to find some missing e-mails that Hillary Clinton had deleted from her personal server while she was working as secretary of state; he suggested that Russian forces should enter Syria and take on the Islamic State; he said “wouldn’t it be great?” if we got along better with Russia.

You’ve heard the term “identity politics,” yes? It’s meant to pigeonhole certain groups and political affiliations into categories. Democrats once were identified as the party that was “soft on communism” and, thus, soft on the Soviet Union. Republicans were identified as the opposite of that squishy label.

Communism officially has died in Russia. What has emerged in its place, though, appears to be its oppressive equal.

Democrats now are alarmed at the budding U.S.-Russia coziness. Republicans — with a few notable exceptions — seem somewhat OK with it.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee and one-time Vietnam War prisoner, has expressed “concern” about Tillerson’s relationship with Putin. You would expect McCain to raise those questions; he dislikes the president-elect and he damn sure detests the Russians, given what their former agents — the North Vietnamese — did to him for more than five years in that POW cell in Hanoi.

Frankly, I am beginning to long for the good old days that, in the grand scheme, were just a little while ago.

I also am thinking the reason Mitt likely won’t get the State job has less to do with what he said about Trump — the “fraud” and “phony” stuff — and more to do with what he said about the Russians.

Trump to make use of his ‘spare time’

usa-medias-elections-television-politique-9ab47cd7cdd3c23a73309463cb26905ff05a98b8-660x450

Kellyanne Conway is a master spinner.

I actually kind of admire Donald J. Trump’s winning campaign manager’s skill at political spin.

Let’s consider her answer to questions about the president-elect’s decision to remain as executive producer of “Celebrity Apprentice.”

Trump will do his “Apprentice” work in his “spare time,” Conway is saying. Spare time? Yep. When the president isn’t busy providing for our national defense, creating millions of jobs for Americans and fighting ISIS terrorists to the hilt, he’s going to devote some of his energy to the reality TV show he started.

The president has a full day on most days anyway. In Trump’s case — if we are to take his campaign rhetoric at face value — he’ll be busy as the dickens “making America great again.” How is he ever going to have the time to work on “Celebrity Apprentice” episodes?

Conway noted that President Obama spent a lot of time on the golf course during his eight years in office. Indeed, I argued on this blog that the president is never off the clock, that he’s the head of state 24/7.

So it will be with Donald Trump. He’ll be at the helm every waking moment of every day he serves as president of the United States.

If a president can take time playing a round of golf to relax, I suppose another president can take time to produce a reality TV show.

Of course, the TV show and the compensation the president will earn from it does present a situation that the network’s news division — NBC in this instance — will have in covering the president.

In the meantime, I will stand by an earlier comment, which is that a president who doubles as a reality TV show producer — and this is just for starters — is just plain weird.

‘Trump landslide’ becoming something quite different

voting

I keep looking at a website that tabulates election results.

A new number jumps out at me as I look at the unofficial vote count from the 2016 presidential election.

3 million.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s margin over Donald J. Trump is getting close to the 3 million mark. She has rolled up a vote total of 65.7 ballots, which is about what President Obama collected when he won re-election in 2012.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Don’t remind me of what I know already: Hillary lost the election. Trump is the next president. He’ll take the oath of office on Jan. 20. Hillary will go back to working on the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. She’s likely done as a national political candidate.

But it’s Trump’s careless use of language that continues to bug me.

He says he won in a “landslide.” No. He didn’t. He captured 306 electoral votes, which is a comfortable margin. A landslide victory? Far from it.

I just need to remind the president-elect that a popular vote deficit approaching 3 million ballots should give him pause as he continues to build his government leadership team.

Rex Tillerson? Huh? Where did he come from?

rex-tillerson-003_jpg_800x1000_q100

Eyes had turned to Mitt Romney, then to David Petraeus, then to Rudy Giuliani, then back to Mitt.

Then the president-elect shakes it all up and appears now set to name Rex Tillerson as the next secretary of state.

Rex the Texan. He’s the man Donald J. Trump is about to pick as the nation’s top diplomat.

Wow! Who knew?

Tillerson is president and CEO of Exxon Mobil. He’s another gazillionaire headed for Trump’s Cabinet.

You may ask: What does this fellow bring to the world of international statecraft? Man, I am officially baffled in the extreme.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/10/trump-taps-texan-and-exxon-mobil-ceo-rex-tillerson/

But here’s what many folks do know about Tillerson: His oil interests reach into Russia, where he reportedly has a good relationship with the Russian strongman, President Vladimir Putin. Oh, boy. Here come the questions.

Will the business interests get in the way of hard-nosed diplomacy? Does Tillerson’s friendship with Putin spell curtains for NATO, the Ukraine, Georgia and other nations affected by Russia’s sword-rattling? Does the apparent nominee’s lack of diplomatic experience hinder his knowledge of world affairs and the nuance required to deal effectively with foreign governments?

The Trumpkins aren’t yet confirming anything. Tillerson, though, appears headed for the State Department. For now. Unless the president-elect changes his mind. Again.

Shocking! Trump was kidding about locking Hillary up

GRAND RAPIDS, MI - DECEMBER 9: President-elect Donald Trump waves to the crowd as he arrives onstage at the DeltaPlex Arena, December 9, 2016 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. President-elect Donald Trump is continuing his victory tour across the country. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Donald J. Trump didn’t mean it. He was kidding. He never intended to “lock up” Hillary Rodham Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server.

Wow! Can you believe it? He said it was a ploy to win votes.

Interesting, yes? I think so.

Now I’m wondering what else the president-elect said just to sway voters to cast their ballots for him.

Does he really intend to build a wall across our southern border? Does he actually intend to ban Muslims from entering the United States of America? The “deportation force” is a joke, too?

Trump has acknowledged already that those hideous things he said about women were for “entertainment” purposes. Gosh, I still haven’t stop laughing. Thanks, Donald, for the hilarity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-lock-her-up_us_584b5b53e4b04c8e2bb01274?

This all seems to play into the narrative that developed not long after the election, which is that you can’t take Trump’s statements literally. When he said he knows “more about ISIS than the generals,” we’re supposed to brush it off as — what — just campaign rhetoric? When he called President Obama the “founder of ISIS,” that was meant to draw applause from those yuuuuge rallies?

As for the so-called pledge to toss Hillary Clinton in jail, many of his ardent supporters accepted as the gospel according to Trump. “Lock  her up!” they chanted repeatedly.

Oh, my. We’re going to have to parse the new president’s words with great care … and even greater skepticism.

Telecommunication lingo creates a curmudgeon

th

I’m going to make an admission.

A certain English word — it comprises exactly four letters — has become, speaking proverbially, a four-letter word.

I refer to the term “text.”

My son and I have concluded that I no longer can say the word text without adding a glaring tone of derision in my voice. Indeed, whenever you read that word henceforth on this blog, you will see it italicized, as if to highlight the utter disgust, disdain and derision I’m feeling as I write the word.

Texting is a verb. So has the word text become a verb. It’s that activity people do when they send messages to each other using their cellphone. It drives me batty in the extreme even to hear others use the word as a verb. It’s not that they are merely sending a message, they have to declare they are texting someone.

I have become so disgusted with the word I cannot even use the word as it’s meant to be used — as a noun — without adding that inflection in my voice. E.g.: “Let me read the text you’ve prepared for presentation tomorrow.” See? Even when I use the word properly, I feel compelled to let you know how much I detest the word.

This is what has become of me in my older years.

It’s not that I am a precise wordsmith. I don’t consider myself to be an eloquent speaker or writer. George Will I ain’t, man.

But the way we’ve perverted some of these seemingly words simply drive me nuts.

Text?

I can’t say it any form any longer. Nor can I even write it without editorializing about it.

What’s happening to me?

Big surprise: Trump trashes CIA analysis of Russian hackers

11intel-01-master768

Of course Donald J. Trump would dismiss the CIA’s assessment that Russia played a role in seeking to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Naturally, he would dismiss the analysis provided by career intelligence officers trained to the max to make such determinations.

The president-elect won the election fair and square, by a “landslide,” he says. He didn’t need no stinkin’ Russian hackers trying to mess with our electoral process, he’ll say.

This is a potentially huge deal, folks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/trump-mocking-claim-that-russia-hacked-election-at-odds-with-gop.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

It’s so big that President Obama has ordered a top-to-bottom analysis of what happened, when it happened, who did it and why. He wants the results on his desk before he leaves office on Jan. 20.

The president-elect has fired yet another barrage at the U.S. intelligence community he is about to lead. He is opening up a potentially serious breach between the myriad intelligence agencies and the White House.

Trump has drawn fire from, get this, fellow Republicans. As the New York Times reported: “’To have the president-elect of the United States simply reject the fact-based narrative that the intelligence community puts together because it conflicts with his a priori assumptions — wow,’ said Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the N.S.A. and later the C.I.A. under President George W. Bush.”

That’s what he is doing. He is rejecting these findings out of hand.

I get that partisan emotions are still burning white hot. More from the New York Times: “With the partisan emotions on both sides — Mr. Trump’s supporters see a plot to undermine his presidency, and Hillary Clinton’s supporters see a conspiracy to keep her from the presidency — the result is an environment in which even those basic facts become the basis for dispute.”

The man who’s still the president for a few more weeks has ordered a complete review. How about letting the intelligence pros do their job, deliver their complete findings to the president — and then let us discuss how we might need to defend our electoral system against foreign interference.

What about the ‘protection’ in EPA title?

thqegv0v4c

I’m still trying to fathom the unfathomable about one of Donald J. Trump’s key administration appointments.

That would be Scott Pruitt being named to head the Environmental Protection Agency. I added the emphasis for a reason. Now I shall explain.

The EPA is designed, as its title suggests, to protect the environment, to ensure that we have clean air, water, that our land doesn’t blow away in the wind. Its mission is to enact regulations to ensure that we preserve our land, water and air.

President Nixon, of all people, thought creating the EPA was a worthwhile endeavor, so he did it in 1970.

The president-elect, though, has selected a sworn enemy of the EPA. Pruitt is the Oklahoma attorney general who has sued the EPA because he — and presumably the rest of his state government — doesn’t like the regulations that the EPA places on industries, such as oil and gas exploration, which is a big deal in Oklahoma (and in Texas, for that matter).

Pruitt’s mission in his public life hasn’t been to protect the environment, or to shore up the agency assigned to do that important task. Oh, no. He has declared war on the EPA.

I am failing big time to grasp how this appointment is supposed to work. Is the president-elect in league with this guy, Pruitt? Does he want to disband, dismantle and disassemble the EPA?

The very term “EPA” has become, in effect, a four-letter word in what has become of Republican orthodoxy. What a shame it is that a tried-and-true Republican, Richard Nixon, would create a valuable federal agency only to have it placed in the hands of someone who seemingly wants to destroy it.

When in God’s world did clean air and water become bad things?