Tag Archives: 9/11

Can Donald Trump really ‘change’ his ways?

trump

I’m trying to understand an admonition that’s coming from leading Republican officeholders, strategists and assorted loyalist as it pertains to the party’s presumed presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

They want him to “change.” They dislike the name-calling, the insults, the innuendo, the reckless riffs that pour forth whenever he takes the podium as he campaigns for the presidency.

If he changes, they say, they might be able to endorse him. They might actually campaign for him. They’ll support the candidate more than in name only.

I keep wondering: How does a man who’s nearly 70 years of age do that?

What’s more, how do Americans who’ve heard the astonishing things that he’s said ignore them if — and this remains a y-u-u-u-u-g-e stretch — Trump actually becomes a more presentable candidate for president?

It’s like the judge in a trial who tells a jury to “disregard what you’ve just heard” from a criminal defendant or from a prosecuting attorney. Sure thing, Your Honor. We’ll just blot that out of our memory.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has endorsed Trump, but with reservations. He dislikes intensely the candidate’s racist views on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his assertion that Curiel’s heritage disqualifies him from presiding over a lawsuit brought against Trump over his defunct “university.”

Ryan has called Trump’s assertions “racist” in nature, but he’s going to support him.

A lot of Americans — millions of them, in fact — aren’t going to forget those comments. They won’t forget the insults Trump has hurled at women, or his mocking of a reporter’s physical disability, or his assertion that Sen. John McCain is a war hero “because he got captured” by the North Vietnamese.

They won’t forget his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, or his claim that illegal immigrants are coming here to commit crimes.

And then we have the lies, such as when he said he witnessed “thousands upon thousands of Muslims” cheering when the Twin Towers tumbled down on 9/11.

So, he’s supposed to “change” the way he campaigns to make himself more suitable to voters.

How does that happen?

Mr. President, it’s ‘radical Islamic terrorism’

obama

The debate has flared anew.

Why doesn’t President Obama use terminology that many Americans — most notably his critics — wish he’d use to describe the evil acts of a certain brand of terrorists?

I’ve been thinking about this over the course of the past good bit of time and have concluded that the president is making a mistake by refusing to refer to these acts — committed by those who pervert a great religion — as “radical Islamic terrorists.”

I say this as a supporter of the president, as one who voted twice for his election and as someone who bristles outwardly at the criticism of those who allege that Barack Obama harbors some sick “sympathy” toward those who commit these evil deeds.

Omar Mateen decided over the weekend to open fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. He was as American as you and me, man. His parents came here from Afghanistan. Then he decided to call the 9-1-1 dispatch center in Orlando and proclaimed that he had pledged fealty to the Islamic State.

Mateen went about his dastardly deed before being killed by police. Before the cops killed him, Mateen managed to commit the worst massacre in U.S. history.

I understand that the president doesn’t want to use language that suggests we are “at war with Islam.” President Bush made that very same case in the days immediately after 9/11 and he was faithful to that notion during the two terms he served in the White House.

Indeed, President Obama’s refusal to recognize openly what the rest of the country already realizes suggests, as conservative thinker John Podhoretz has written, a certain disconnect from reality.

As Podhoretz writes in the New York Post: “He called it ‘terror,’ which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease ‘cancer’ without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.”

Here’s the entire essay:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/

I do not intend to belabor the point. I do want to suggest that the definition of “radical Islam” immediately exempts Muslims who do not commit these acts, who live their lives just like every other decent human being, who are peaceful and only want the best for their families and their communities.

There. I’ve made my case the best way I know how.

I continue to support Barack Obama’s efforts to fight these perverted villains.

However, Mr. President, call them what they are: radical Islamic terrorists.

Anti-Islam sentiment: nothing new

Anti-Islamic-Sentiment

Muhammad Ali’s death this past week brings to mind something that I hadn’t considered until, oh, just a few minutes ago.

The legendary fighter’s religious conversion became the subject of considerable discussion — and scorn — when he made that conversion … in 1964!

Which brings to mind this thought: The anti-Muslim sentiment we’re seeing in the present day is nothing new in this country. It’s been there for decades, maybe centuries.

Cassius Clay won the heavyweight boxing championship by scoring a technical knockout over Sonny Liston. Clay then announced he was becoming a Muslim and would change his name; he became Cassius X and later Muhammad Ali.

Sure, over time Ali’s stature would rise to heights not seen in professional athletes. He became a revered figure not so much because he changed his religious affiliation, but because of the courage he displayed in the face of the hatred that was slung at him.

The mid to late 1960s brought a level of turmoil that we hadn’t seen since, perhaps, the Civil War.

The Vietnam War was going badly. Ali became a spokesman against that war. That he became a Muslim — let alone a member of the Nation of Islam — and changed his name to that foreign-sounding moniker only inflamed many people’s passions against him.

Was there religious and racial bigotry coming to the fore then?

I believe there was.

Which brings us to what many Americans are feeling today about people who worship Islam.

Yes, it’s different now. Terrorists have perverted a great religion and committed unspeakable acts in that religion’s name. A leading presidential candidate — Donald J. Trump — has declared his desire to impose a moratorium on all Muslims entering this country; how in the world he would enact such a thing is beyond me.

As Ali’s death has revealed, though, the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is far from anything that was ginned up by those 9/11 attacks and by the Islamic State’s hideous actions.

The bigotry and intolerance has been wrong for a long time.

Media simply ‘afflicting the comfortable’

donald-trump

Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.

One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.

Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.

Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html

The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.

Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.

Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

He didn’t witness anything of the sort.

Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.

That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.

Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.

 

As if it could get any crazier in the Middle East

BBt5f5f

So … you might be asking: How complicated can it get in the Middle East?

Here’s a thought: Al-Qaeda could become something of an “ally” of ours if the terror organization decides to train its guns on another terror organization.

You remember those guys, right? They flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and launched the current Global War on Terror. We hunted down Osama bin Laden and killed his sorry backside in Pakistan. We’ve been fighting al-Qaeda ever since.

Now we have the Islamic State to contend with. We’ve been taking those monstrous terrorists as well.

Now comes word that al-Qaeda might decide to go after the Islamic State in Syria.

Which of these terror cabals poses the greatest threat to the United States and our allies? Do we take sides?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/al-qaeda-turns-to-syria-with-a-plan-to-challenge-isis/ar-BBt5p8n?li=BBnbcA1

Here’s a thought. Maybe we ought to just let al-Qaeda do what reports indicate it intends to do. The Shiite terror group might have determined that ISIL — the Sunni monsters — pose a grave threat to them.

The report attached to this blog post suggests al-Qaeda might seek to “compete” with ISIL for supremacy in the dark world of Middle East terrorists. What about, oh, Hezbollah and Hamas? Why not “compete” against them as well?

Of course we’re not going to take sides. Nor should we.

My own hope is that “compete” actually means to “fight,” which means one terror group is going to kill members of the other terror group.

If that’s what transpires, then let ’em fight.

 

Hillary finds a worthwhile task for Bill

clintonbillclintonhillary_072815getty

I have been waiting to hear this bit of news. I’ve been curious about what might lie ahead for the next presidential spouse.

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’s got a job for her husband if she’s elected the next president of the United States this November.

She intends to put the 42nd president in charge of “revitalizing the economy.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279973-bill-clinton-could-have-economic-role-under-wifes

Bill Clinton presided over an economic revival during his time as president. From 1993 until 2001, President Clinton — working with a Congress controlled by men and women who belonged to the other party — did what once was deemed impossible. The government reached a balanced federal budget. Indeed, it operated with a substantial surplus by the time Bill Clinton’s two terms had come to an end.

If there is one singular positive legacy from the Bill Clinton presidency, it is that the nation enjoyed tremendous economic health.

It came unraveled not long after Bill Clinton left office. Terrorists hit us hard, we went to war, the new president — George W. Bush — didn’t propose a way to pay for that struggle. The deficit ballooned.

Now, with another election coming on quickly, the former president is poised to give the next president a constructive hand in shoring up the economic recovery that most observers say remains unsteady.

“He’s got more ideas a minute than anybody I know,” Clinton said of her husband.

Great. Let’s put them to work.

Oh wait. First, Hillary Clinton’s got to get elected.

 

No, Ivanka … Dad hasn’t ‘elevated’ the debate

trump_050316getty

Ivanka Trump’s love for her father is a beautiful thing to see.

Most of the time.

It becomes a bit less beautiful when she says things about the “contribution” dear ol’ Dad has made to the level of discourse in this year’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Donald J. Trump — Ivanka’s father — has “elevated (the debate) — he’s created dialogue around issues. It’s a powerful thing,” she said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279838-ivanka-trump-my-father-has-elevated-the-dialogue

I don’t believe that’s the case.

Trump has come under intense criticism from leaders in both major political parties for, let’s see, doing the precise opposite of what Ivanka Trump says he has done.

He has lowered the level of discourse. He has taken it to depths not seen in at least two generations.

Daddy Trump’s insults of other candidates have topped the charts.

He has ridiculed other candidates’ physical appearance, their eating habits, their level of “energy.” He has hurtful things about a journalist’s physical disability. Trump has said amazingly crass things about the alleged reasons another journalist asked him tough and pointed questions at a televised debate.

Ivanka Trump also disregards the lies Trump has told all along the way as he moves closer to becoming the Republican Party’s presidential nominee.

One stands out: Donald Trump said he watched “thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. He’s also said the Mexican government is sending rapists, drug dealers and murderers to commit mayhem and misery on this side of the countries’ common border.

This is how his daughter — by all accounts an accomplished young woman — describes as “elevating” the level of discourse during the campaign for president.

She said her father is “honest.” He says what’s on his mind at the moment, Ivanka said.

There’s something to be said — although I don’t know what that would be — for that brand of “honesty.” Let us not, though, suggest that it elevates the quality of what has passed so far for political debate.

 

 

No singing at memorial? Oh, please!

ax223-248f-9jpg-a569f38ac4ed1057

An overzealous security guard at the 9/11 memorial and museum in New York City deserves a serious reprimand by the New York Port Authority that employs him.

The guard told a North Carolina middle school class to stop singing — here it comes — the National Anthem at the memorial.

It seems that singing isn’t allowed at this sacred site without someone or some group paying for a special permit to do so.

To which I would add: what pure baloney!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/nyregion/guard-stops-students-from-singing-national-anthem-at-9-11-memorial.html

The museum staff has issued an apology to the students and their adult chaperones. It said the guard acted inappropriately.

Gee, do you think?

Perhaps the most stunning element of this story might be the reaction from the teachers. They said they viewed the incident as something of a teaching experience for the children. It taught them to “respect authority,” according to the New York Times.

I give huge credit for the teachers for their restraint and their respect for the authority of the guards.

However, it wasn’t as if the kids were singing some kind of raunchy rock song or a ’60s protest song that criticized the federal government.

The students sought to honor the nation with their rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.

It seems the museum brass ought to rethink the rules it has set out. Some clarity at the very least is in order, given that the teachers who led the students were told it would be OK to sing the anthem.

Whatever the outcome, the 9/11 museum and the Port Authority deserve the criticism that is coming their way.

 

Please, no conspiracy theories about rally violence

Donald-Trump_3372655b

Donald J. Trump says Bernie Sanders has planted protesters at rallies to stir things up and provoke violence.

Sanders denies it categorically.

Now a Florida congressman — a Trump supporter — says Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign is guilty of prodding the Trumpsters into striking back at the protesters.

No word yet from the Clinton campaign; I’m quite sure there’ll be a categorical denial there, too.

Conspiracy theories have this way of never dying. JFK assassination? Area 51 cover-up? 9/11?

It might be that long after this campaign has ended, we’ll hear conspiracy theories kicked around about who started the violence at the Trump rallies as the candidate stumps for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

Here’s my theory.

Trump started it by inflaming his crowds from the podium.

Punch people in the face? Beat the “crap” out of someone? Offer to pay legal fees for those charged with crimes?

The candidate is inciting the violence and that — all by itself — is what gives this story its staying power.

I get that violence has occurred over many decades. The 1968 Democratic National Convention provoked a full-scale series of street riots in Chicago. Police vs. Protesters turned into the stuff of hideous, actual “reality TV” for those of us who watched it unfold.

It spilled onto the convention floor. Security personnel beat up delegates and media reporters.

Do you recall hearing pols exhorting protesters from the stage? Neither do I.

Yes, this campaign is vastly different.

It has brought the level of political campaigning to a level not seen by anyone, near as I can tell.

It’s also prompted the goofballs among us to suggest that it’s all being orchestrated by mysterious evil political opponents.

It’s not so complicated. The violence is a result of a candidate fomenting the anger expressed by those who support his bid for the presidency, which has dared those who oppose him to respond with protests.

Why in the name of sanity — and decency — can’t Donald J. Trump start delivering a positive message of change?

I hope it isn’t too late.

 

No, Mr. Trump, ‘Islam’ doesn’t hate us

islam-at-war

Islam hates America?

That’s what Republican Party presidential campaign frontrunner Donald J. Trump has asserted in his latest broadside against nearly 2 billion of the world’s residents.

No sir. You are wrong!

Trump’s assertion goes far afield from what we know.

It is that a radical portion of the Islamic religion has perverted the doctrine espoused by a great religion. They are not true Muslims. They are cultists. They are murderers. They are religious perverts.

The men who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon on 9/11 were not God-fearing Muslims. They were murderers, pure and simple.

Sure, these individuals hate Americans. They also hate Europeans. Moreover, they also hate fellow Muslims.

Let us realize that the largest number of casualties who’ve been injured and killed by terror attacks around the world are Muslims.

Trump’s false assertion became a brief talking point tonight at the Republican debate in Miami. Sen. Marco Rubio challenged Trump by suggesting that the reality TV celebrity is wrong to suggest that hatred for America is somehow codified in the Quran.

It’s not.

Donald Trump cannot be allowed to get away with this continued fear- and hate-mongering along the presidential campaign trail.