Tag Archives: George W. Bush

International news

Obama disagrees with Trump refugee ban? No kidding!

It didn’t take Barack Obama long at all to weigh in against a policy pronouncement by his presidential successor, Donald Trump.

“The President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” said the former president’s spokesman, Kevin Lewis.

I’m going to take another gulp of air now and say this: I wish the former president would have stayed quiet on this one … for two reasons.

First, it should surprise no one that the ex-president opposes Trump’s idiotic refugee ban targeting those coming to the United States from Muslim-majority nations. President Obama made that point abundantly clear during his two terms in office, that the United States must not discriminate against anyone because of their religion as we fight this war against international terrorism.

The second reason is that I continue to endorse the George W./George H.W. Bush view of former presidents criticizing their successors. Bush 43 was essentially quiet during the Obama presidency; Bush 41 also kept quiet during the two terms of Bill Clinton’s presidency. They both adhered to the same principle: We had our time in the arena; that time is up and the men who followed them are entitled to conduct foreign and domestic policy without being sniped at by their predecessor.

Indeed, I was critical former Vice President Dick Cheney’s continual carping about Obama’s conduct of the office.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/05/button-it-up-mr-vp/

Don’t misunderstand me. I endorse Barack Obama’s opinion of Trump’s ban on refugees. It was poorly conceived and even more poorly executed. Several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.

However, Barack Obama need tell us what we already know about what he thinks about a particular Trump policy.

International news

Is this an anti-Muslim rule … or not?

Donald J. Trump swears up and down, left and right — puts his hand on a stack of Bibles and says “Scout’s honor” for all I know — that his ban against refugees is not an “anti-Muslim” initiative.

The president, though, has delivered to our enemies a prime-time, gold-and-silver-plated recruitment tool.

He calls our enemies “radical Islamic terrorists.” Yes, they are.

They also are experts at distorting people’s intentions, even their very words, twisting them into propaganda fodder.

What the president has done is create a climate for terrorists such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda to target American Muslims to join their fight against the “infidels.” He also has delivered to a much wider audience the very message that his two immediate predecessors — Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack H. Obama — fought like hell to avoid delivering. Presidents Bush and Obama said clearly: We are not at war with Islam! The enemies are the monstrous murderers who have perverted a great religion.

Now we have the potential for the precise opposite message being delivered to those who might be inclined to join a radical militant movement, to take up arms and to join the fight against the rest of the civilized world.

The president of the United States is expected to speak with absolute clarity and precision. When we’re dealing with the complexities of the current world geopolitical climate, any misstep or clumsy language can produce dire consequences.

The president’s refugee ban has roiled members of the president’s own party, created a firestorm within the legal community over its very constitutionality, and it has possibly enraged Muslims around the world — and in the United States — to the point of causing grievous harm.

International news, national news

Muslim ban plays straight into the terrorists’ hands

Now he’s done it.

The president of the United States has just ordered a ban on all immigrants this country from certain Muslim-majority countries. His fear is that immigrants from those countries might be terrorists intent on blowing us all up.

Donald J. Trump has just demonstrated — as if anyone really needed an explanation — how little he understands about the very nature of the nation he was elected to lead.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-order-democrats-234312

Not only has the order enraged Democrats across the nation, it has split Republicans as well. It has once again cast a serious chaotic spin on the activities associated with the president who’s been in office a week and one day.

Just think, Dear Reader, we’ve got four whole years of this.

U.S. Sen Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, said he understands Trump’s desire to protect us against terrorists but a “blanket ban” on immigrants from Muslim countries demonizes those who practice a certain religion unfairly. The president, Flake said, needs a “clear-eyed view” that doesn’t ascribe “radical Islamic terrorist views to all Muslims.”

That, however, is what Trump has just done.

Moreover, as Sen. Susan Collins (pictured), a Maine Republican, has noted, such a blanket ban will create problems immediately for the president.

Donald Trump has just ratcheted up the fight that appears to imply that, by golly, we are at war with Islam — a principle rejected categorically by his two immediate predecessors, Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack H. Obama.

national news, political news

Trump does battle with … ‘W’?

Yochi Dreazen has offered an interesting analysis on Donald J. Trump’s inaugural speech in an essay written for Vox.com.

It is this: The real target of the new president’s barbs and brickbats wasn’t his immediate predecessor, Barack H. Obama; rather, Dreazen writes, it was the guy who served before Obama — George W. Bush.

Here’s the essay:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-real-target-of-trump%e2%80%99s-inaugural-speech-wasn%e2%80%99t-barack-obama-it-was-george-w-bush/ar-AAm4gLu?li=BBnb7Kz

When you think about it, the notion makes sense.

Trump didn’t mention the Affordable Care Act, or the Iran nuclear arms deal or the return of diplomatic relations with Cuba in his inaugural speech. Republicans all across the land have been critical of all three policy issues.

His target instead, if you parse the president’s 16-minute inaugural speech, was the amount of money we’ve spend on foreign wars while neglecting our roads, bridges, airports and rail lines.

Dreazen writes: “Take Trump’s comments about how the US had wrongly ‘spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.’ The president who launched those costly wars — and who was responsible for the bulk of the estimated $5 trillion that the US has spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the bulk of the 8,000 American military deaths in the two countries — was Bush, not Obama.

So, this seems to portend an interesting dynamic as the new president prepares to craft his agenda and present it to a Congress controlled in both chambers by Republicans.

GOP lawmakers do not believe we’ve wasted our effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor do they hold the Bush administration in the same highly negative light that Trump cast on it while he campaigned for the presidency. He called the Iraq War a “disaster,” a “huge mistake.”

President Bush — along with his father, Bush 41 and brother Jeb, the former Florida governor and 2016 GOP presidential candidate — returned the favor by refusing to campaign for Trump. None of them attended the GOP convention in Cleveland. They sat on their hands.

I’m going to venture not too far out on the limb here by suggesting that the Bushes are held in considerably greater regard by establishment congressional Republicans than the 45th president.

How will this play as Trump has to work with Republicans who control the flow of legislation and laws? Let’s all hold our breath … and wait.

business news, national news, political news

Will the new president violate the Constitution right away?

An argument making the rounds for the past several months goes something like this: Donald J. Trump is going to be in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution at the moment he takes the oath of office as president of the United States of America.

The source of the violation? His myriad business interests.

This isn’t just a Democratic Party point of view. Republicans also are buying into a notion that Trump’s refusal to separate himself completely from his business dealings is creating a monstrous potential for conflict of interest.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/19/510574687/ethics-lawyers-call-trumps-business-conflicts-nakedly-unconstitutional

According to National Public Radio: “A president is not permitted to receive cash and other benefits from foreign governments,” Norm Eisen tells Fresh Air‘s Terry Gross. “And yet, Donald Trump is getting a steady flow of them around the world and right here in the United States.”

The “emoluments clause” is front and center in this debate. It’s written into the U.S. Constitution. It should be called the “anti-bribery clause.” Trump has refused to divest his myriad business interests; he has refused to put them into a blind trust.

NPR, quoting Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, reports: “The president needs to focus on protecting the United States and American interests in a very dangerous world,” Painter says. “I really hope that President Trump takes the steps he needs to, to be free of conflict of interest in that endeavor.”

There are questions about whether Trump’s business dealings abroad could interfere with U.S. policy. Trump refuses to release his tax returns. He declines to provide detailed financial reports. He keeps saying this discussion is a media creation.

Holy cow, dude! You’ve got some serious experts on this stuff suggesting you’re going to violate the Constitution you will swear to “defend and protect.”

Does a direct violation of that sacred oath create a reason for, um, impeachment?

Let’s all wait for this to play out.

national news, political news

No talk of polls these days from POTUS-elect

Polls became something of a linchpin of Donald J. Trump’s successful campaign for the presidency.

He boasted about them continually when they showed him leading his Republican Party primary rivals. He ridiculed other GOP candidates for failing to break the 1 or 2 percent barrier.

Then he got nominated and he started bragging as the general election campaign raced toward the finish line and polls showed him closing the gap with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Polls are up? They’re good. Polls go down? They’re “rigged.”

Well, the president-elect has some more polling data with which to contend. These are the polls that show Trump to be about the least popular president-elect in decades.

Barack Obama became president with an approval rating at nearly 80 percent. George W. Bush took office in 2001 also with soaring public approval ratings.

Trump’s ratings? They’re at 40 percent or less, depending on the polls you see.

Think of this, too: The president-elect hasn’t done anything! He’s made no difficult decisions that are bound to anger millions of Americans.

Transitions historically have been the high-water mark for presidents of the United States. The next president starts at a much lower platform than most of his predecessors.

What about these polls, Mr. President-elect?

International news, national news

CIA boss issues stern, correct warning to Trump

The time will arrive, possibly quite soon after Donald J. Trump becomes president of the United States, when the new president will ask for advice from his intelligence network.

What will he think when the spooks tell him that, oh, the Russians are about to launch an attack on Ukraine, or on the Baltic States, or on Georgia? How might he respond to reports from the CIA that Russians are killing civilians in Syria?

CIA Director John Brennan said today that Trump is treading onto some dangerous territory with his continued dismissal and disparagement of the CIA over its findings that Russian hackers sought to influence the 2016 presidential election.

He needs to make peace with the intelligence professionals who work in the trenches of the CIA, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cia-director-warns-trump-as-tensions-rise-with-intelligence-agencies/ar-AAlTpg8?li=BBnb7Kz

Brennan said this — among other things — on “Fox News Sunday”: “What I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany,” said Brennan, who served in the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “I do take great umbrage at that, and there is no basis for Mr. Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information that was already available publicly.”

Trump’s continual dismissal of the intelligence apparatus goes directly against traditional Republican orthodoxy, which historically has sided with the spies when questions arise about foreign threats to the nation. Indeed, Trump’s tweet tirades against the CIA have drawn pointed criticism from GOP officials as well as from Democrats.

Then we have Brennan, who served Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama weighing in with stern words of warning for the next president.

As Bloomberg News reported about Brennan’s “Fox News Sunday” appearance: Brennan admonished Trump, who’s recently suggested he might lift sanctions on Russia, “to be mindful that he doesn’t yet, I think, have a full appreciation/understanding of what the implications are of such a move” amid Russia’s actions in Ukraine, Syria and online. He added that Trump “needs to be very, very careful.”

Does the new president have an appreciation or understanding of anything having to do with national security?

This is the kind of thing that frightens the daylights out of millions of Americans.

I am one of them.

national news, political news

Hold on, Rep. Lewis!

I have great respect and admiration for John Lewis, one of the most iconic members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

This brave and gallant man who was nearly beaten to death during the civil-rights marches of the 1960s, has not only survived, but he has become one of the great voices of Congress.

But he is getting way ahead of himself when he calls Donald J. Trump an “illegitimate” president.

Why is that? Rep. Lewis is concerned about the Russian involvement in our electoral process and allegations that Russian geeks/spooks sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election — in Trump’s favor.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/314234-john-lewis-trump-isnt-a-legitimate-president

Let’s hold on, sir!

I happen to share your distaste of Trump as a president. Believe me, I preferred the other major-party candidate over the Republican nominee. I also am concerned about the Russian involvement as confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies.

However, nothing at all has been established about whether Russian hackers had any tangible impact on the outcome of the election. No one has proved that Russians tilted significant numbers of Americans to vote for Trump over Clinton.

I’ve never been prone to question the “legitimacy” of presidents elected in a controversial manner. I never once, not for a second, questioned President George W. Bush’s election in 2000 — even with the Supreme Court ruling and the fact that he got fewer popular votes than Al Gore. The U.S. Constitution worked as it was supposed to work in that election and Bush’s presidency was granted its legitimacy at that time.

Donald Trump won more Electoral College votes than Hillary Clinton. He, too, is a “legitimate” president-elect by virtue of collecting enough of the votes that count to be elected.

Unless someone can determine beyond a doubt that Russians — or some mysterious unknown intervener — actually had a tangible impact on the 2016 presidential election, then calling Trump’s presidency “illegitimate” is a major step too far.

Do I wish the outcome had been different? Absolutely! It wasn’t. Too bad for those of us who voted for someone else. I’m going to wait to see how this Russian-hacking probe plays out.

national news, political news

Clintons to attend Trump inaugural … who’da thunk it?

Bygones won’t necessarily be bygones come Jan. 20 for Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But they’re going to attend the inauguration of the fellow who pulled off arguably the most stunning presidential election upset of the past century … and it involved one of the Clintons.

The Clintons are going to attend Donald J. Trump’s inauguration as president — even though Hillary Clinton fell victim to that shocking upset at Trump’s hands.

Words nearly escape me as I seek to describe the nature of the Trump-Clinton campaign for the presidency. “Rough,” “brutal,” “angry” seem far too timid of descriptive terms.

I’ll leave it to others to attach the appropriate adjective.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/312542-clintons-to-attend-trumps-inauguration

I am glad, though, to know that the Clintons will attend this event and pay their respects to the office that Bill Clinton once occupied and that Hillary Clinton thought she would assume. Their individual and collective respect for the 45th president, though, likely remains a topic of some speculation.

The only living former president who won’t attend will be George H.W. Bush; he cites health concerns that will keep him away. Former Presidents Carter and George W. Bush will attend, along with Bill Clinton.

A lot of eyes, of course, will be focused on Hillary Clinton. In a normal election year, the spotlight would be on her. As we all learned — many of us to our dismay — this was far from a normal presidential campaign.

Suffice to say that Hillary Clinton’s decision to join her husband at Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration speaks loudly and clearly to her own character and grace.

national news

Obama prepares to bid us farewell; I will miss him

President Barack H. Obama is getting ready to bid a nation he led farewell.

It will occur on Jan. 10. He’ll deliver a speech in his hometown of Chicago. What do you suppose he will say?

Let’s dispense with the obvious: He’ll talk about the economic crisis he inherited, and from which his policies helped save the nation from collapse; he’ll tell us about providing health insurance to 20 million Americans; he will remind us of how we managed to kill Osama bin Laden; he will tell us of a shrinking annual budget deficit and diminishing unemployment rate.

I am going to miss this man’s style, grace, his commanding presence and the hope he continues to instill in millions of my fellow Americans.

Has it been a hiccup-free presidency over the past years? Of course not. The so-called “JV team” known as the Islamic State has become a top-drawer international enemy; Russia has re-emerged as a global threat; we’re still at war against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But I am not going to declare that this man has been a “failed president.” I am confident that history will judge him quite differently than that. It likely will judge him as a consequential president, if not a great one.

I hope he doesn’t forgo a statement during his farewell speech that reminds us of the obstruction that occurred almost from the very beginning of his presidency. The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell (in)famously told us in 2009 that his “No. 1 priority” would be to make Barack Obama a “one-term president.”

Republicans fought the Democratic president at every step. One of them shouted from the congressional gallery during a State of the Union speech that “You lie!” when he said that undocumented immigrants wouldn’t benefit from the Affordable Care Act. When do you recall such utter disrespect being demonstrated against any president? Never, right?

Barack Obama is going to give way to Donald J. Trump on Jan. 20. I am going to do my level best to keep a civil tongue in my mouth and refrain from ad hominem personal attacks against the new president.

I will continue to support the man for whom I voted twice for president. He shouldn’t disappear from the public stage. I do hope, though, he shows the restraint that his immediate predecessor — George W. Bush — has exhibited while his successor takes the reins of power.

In the meantime, I am looking forward with decidedly mixed feelings about his farewell speech to a nation that well might miss his presence on the national stage.