Tag Archives: 9/11

Clinton faces defamatory attacks about her health

BROOKLYN, NY - JUNE 7: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attends a primary night rally in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, June 7, 2016 in Brooklyn, New York. Clinton will become the first woman in U.S. history to secure the presidential nomination of one of the country's two major political parties. (Photo by Brooks Kraft/ Getty Images)

 

Rudy Guiliani used to be known as “America’s mayor,” a title he earned by his stellar performance as mayor of New York City as it coped with the hideous 9/11 terror attacks.

He’s now in danger of being considered “America’s goofball.”

His (former) honor is peddling pure crap as it regards Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He has said she is ill. He doesn’t have an iota of hard evidence. He just says it.

When asked on Fox News about his contention, Guiliani then offered the most nonsensical rebuttal of all time. “Go online,” he said, referring to the Internet.

That’s it! If it’s on the Internet, he said, then it must be true.

My head nearly exploded when I heard that.

He’s parroting the line, the strategy being employed by Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

This campaign veered toward the gutter long ago. Trump has been at the wheel of the GOP clown car ever since he declared his candidacy for the presidential nomination. Now that he has been nominated, he keeps gripping the clown car wheel and keep riding it into the same ol’ gutter.

There are those of us out here who are struggling with these campaign choices. Clinton is far from an ideal candidate. She’s got some serious hurdles to clear herself. They deal with trust and whether she would be totally truthful when talking to Americans about serious policy matters.

None of the concerns about Clinton, to my mind, has a thing to do with her physical health.

She is sharp, engaged, well-informed, articulate.

Donald Trump is none of those things.

Rudy Guiliani knows it, too.

Trump calls for another un-American policy

trump

Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign is based essentially on his vow to “make America great again.”

If he means it — and I’m not entirely sure he does — then why on Earth does he keep making patently in-American foreign-policy proposals?

Here’s the latest one: The Republican presidential nominee wants to put all immigrants through an ideology test before they are allowed entry into the United States.

He would require customs and immigrations agents to quiz every immigrant seeking residence in the United States about their feelings on such issues as gay rights, gender equality and religious freedom.

If they answer the “right” way, they’re in. If not, they go back. Is that how it works?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-call-for-new-ideological-test-for-admission-to-us/ar-BBvD2lE?li=BBnb7Kz

We’ve already listened to Trump rail against Muslims while proposing to ban them from entering the United States. He’s called illegal Latin American immigrants rapists, murderers and drug dealers and wants to build a “beautiful wall” across our southern border to keep them out.

And, oh yes, he talks about all this under the theme of making America great again.

What utter horse manure!

He’s going to talk about a plan to discontinue “nation-building” as part of our foreign policy. I actually agree with that. Look what nation-building has brought us: continued bloodshed in Iraq after we toppled the dictator Saddam Hussein; more of the same in Afghanistan after we routed the Taliban from power after 9/11; Libya remains a mess.

But this idiotic notion of applying an ideological test to all immigrants seeks to throw a shroud over the beacon that draws immigrants to our land in the first place.

Try this conspiracy theory on for size

donald-trump-s-presidential-campaign-manager-arrested-1459339462-4920.jpg

Those who believe conspiracies exist behind every decision or public policy action might be inclined at this moment to believe the following …

That the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, really doesn’t want the job for which he has been campaigning and is throwing the election on purpose.

Do not count me as a conspiracy theorist. I believe men have walked on the moon, that the 9/11 attacks were a surprise and that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed President Kennedy.

The Trump phenomenon, however, has me thinking — yet again — about whether the guy really wants to become president of the United States.

He gets his party’s nomination, then sits through four days of watching the Democrats nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton the next week.

Then, right out of the chute after Clinton secures the nomination, Trump goes after the parents of a fallen U.S. Army soldier who happened to be Muslim, and then insists that a crying baby be removed from a rally at which he was speaking. Then he said he wished he could have earned a Purple Heart in combat.

What in the name of the Theater of the Absurd is going on here?

Time and time and time again, Trump has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of anything regarding governance. He reportedly quizzed a senior campaign staffer about why the United States was prohibited from using nuclear weapons; Trump’s campaign has denied that he asked the question. OK, Don … whatever you say.

The Republican Party brass can’t stand him. His campaign appears to be disintegrating before our eyes.

Is it on purpose? Is the GOP nominee deliberately sabotaging his campaign so he can stick it in the collective eyes and/or ears of those who fear for their party’s viability as a legitimate political instrument?

Look, I don’t know if any of this is true. It’s just that the unpredictability factor of this campaign makes it impossible to dismiss what — in normal times — would seem to be preposterous in the extreme.

Nothing at all would surprise at this point.

After all, the Republican Party nominated this guy to run for president of the United States of America. Is there anything more preposterous than that?

Newt proposes going to war against Islam

the_crux_of_our_endless_war_on_terror

President George W. Bush stood firm and resolute in the days after 9/11 and declared — without equivocation — that America would not go to war “against Islam.”

Our enemy, he told a grief-stricken nation, are the religious perverts who acted in the name of a mainstream religion.

Then we went to war against terrorists.

President Barack Obama came into office eight years later and said the same thing. He has followed through on President Bush’s declaration. Yet those who condemn Barack Obama’s strategy choose to ignore the war policies enacted by his immediate predecessor in the White House.

So, what does a one-time congressional leader and former candidate for president of the United States want to do? He wants to go to war against Islam. Newt Gingrich said last night the nation needs to apply “tests” to Muslims to determine if they believe in Sharia law, which he said is incompatible with “western civilization.”

The former speaker of the House has given the radical Islamists a lead-pipe-cinch recruitment tool. He has just delivered to them all the evidence many of the terrorists need to justify their jihad against the United States and our many allies around the world.

Two presidents — one Republican and one Democrat — who’ve been up to their armpits in this on-going war against radical Islamic terrorists have laid down an important marker that Newt Gingrich has declared no longer matters.

Suffice to say, at least, that Newt no longer is in a position to turn his shrill rhetoric into public policy.

Thank goodness, at least, for that reality.

Trump gives love to … Saddam Hussein!

trump

Let’s see if this is correct.

Donald J. Trump says in one breath that Saddam Hussein was a “bad guy, OK?” and then heaps praise on the one-time tyrant because he killed terrorists without reading them their rights.

The Republican presidential candidate thinks the world would be better off if Saddam and Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi were still in power.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-saddam-hussein-a-shout-out/ar-AAi914h?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Gadhafi was pretty tough on his enemies, too, so I reckon he’d be getting some love from the Trumpenator if the moment presented itself.

Saddam Hussein brought zero redeeming quality to the world’s geopolitical situation. Do I agree with the decision to invade his country in 2003 on a phony pretext that he possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. But there can be nothing worth praising about the guy.

As for whether we’re tough enough in our war against international terror, I believe we’ve been quite ruthless in the hunt for Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other terrorists lurking in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Osama bin Laden’s corpse was dumped into the ocean after our commandos took him out. We’ve been launching drone strikes and manned air strikes daily against terrorists since we went to war with them after the 9/11 attacks.

Trump, though, is blathering utter nonsense if he thinks Saddam Hussein presented the model for fighting terrorists.

As nation grieves, Trump boasts

90

“Temperamentally unfit … ”

We’re likely to hear that a lot during the next few months as Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigns for president of the United States against Donald J. Trump.

Examples? We’ve got plenty of them.

The latest example of temperamental unfitness presented itself in the hours after this past weekend’s slaughter of 49 people at the Pulse, an Orlando, Fla., nightclub.

The nation went into shock at the most gruesome mass murder in U.S. history. Trump’s response was to send out a tweet that boasted about how he predicted that Islamic terrorists were going to strike.

Trump said he called it. He was right. The president of the United States has been “weak” in the fight against terrorism, he said.

Republican insiders now are saying that Trump blew it badly by bragging during this time of national bereavement. “Only an a**hole says ‘I told you so’ the same day 49 people are killed on American soil by a terrorist,” said a New Hampshire Republican, who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously, according to Politico.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-orlando-response-224479

The massacre in Orlando has been generally categorized as an act of terror. The killer — an American — seems to have been radicalized by his fealty to the Islamic State.

It’s also been called the “worst act of terror on U.S. soil since 9/11.” That’s now a given.

I now shall remind us all of what national security officials said in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Almost to a person they predicted then that we’d get hit again. That the terrorists had smelled our blood and they wanted more of it.

It’s also been a given that we would feel this kind of pain.

Trump’s braggadocio was so profoundly inappropriate that it only feeds the narrative that Hillary Clinton is going to recite time and again as she campaigns for the presidency.

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.