Tag Archives: Ike

This old soldier just ‘faded away’

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — General of the Army Douglas MacArthur once declared famously in a speech to Congress that “Old soldiers never die. They just … fade away.”

Another five-star Army general, Dwight Eisenhower, had his military rank restored after he left the presidency in 1961 and he preferred to be called “Gen. Eisenhower” in the years since he left the White House.

Andrew Jackson, the nation’s seventh president, is buried next to his wife, Rachel, in her beloved garden at The Hermitage, the former president’s home.

I was struck when I heard a docent at the site say that the Old Hickory much preferred his military rank over the commander in chief rank he held for eight years, from 1829 until 1837. Jackson was apparently prouder of his general’s rank than he was of president of the United States of America.

He was, after all, the “hero” of the Battle of New Orleans. His rag-tag forces were greatly outnumbered and outgunned by the British, but managed to score a victory over the Brits.

Jackson was thrust into the news in recent weeks, when one of his successors as president — Donald J. Trump — sought to suggest that Trump could have prevented the Civil War. Interesting, in that Jackson died 16 years before the nation’s bloodiest conflict even started.

Indeed, though, Jackson’s history as president is a good bit more checkered than his military history. He promoted the Manifest Destiny policy that called for the settlement — or the conquering — of the Old West. The “Trail of Tears” occurred on his watch as president. He was known as a “unionist,” and believed that federal policy should oversee states’ policy allowing slave ownership  — which is a curious contradiction, in that he owned slaves.

Whatever …

He is buried at The Hermitage under a tombstone that calls him “General Andrew Jackson.”

Old Hickory certainly did share the military ethos of two quite prominent successors. They were immensely proud of their service to their nation at war.

 

Trump launches potential war of attrition

I long have thought that every human being has a limit to the amount of emotional baggage he or she can lug around.

Accordingly, it’s fair to wonder just how much bedlam Donald John Trump can endure as he continues — in some form or fashion — to govern the United States as its president.

His first 100-plus days as president have been a stunning exercise in chaos, controversy and confusion.

It’s making me wonder — and I’m quite serious about this — whether Trump has the stamina to continue to function in this manner. My memory of presidential transition goes back to when John Kennedy took over from Dwight Eisenhower in 1961. No one has managed to create the number of firestorms so early in their presidency as the 45th man to hold that office. Not even Lyndon Johnson, who became president in 1963 in the midst of a horrifying national tragedy; or Gerald Ford, who ascended to the presidency in 1974 in the wake of a crippling constitutional crisis and scandal.

In a related matter, it’s also fair to ask just how much of this the public can withstand.

Just in the past week, we’ve seen the president fire the FBI director and ignite a political wildfire that continues to rage out of control. Trump cannot formulate a cogent message. His White House communications team is flummoxed hourly it seems by contradictory statements pouring out of the president’s pie hole.

How do they handle it? How can they withstand this level of chaos?

And I haven’t even mentioned what seems like an increasingly real possibility that we might have an impeachment process starting to take shape in the U.S. House of Representatives.

There might be an obstruction of justice charge leveled at the president over the threat he leveled at James Comey two days after he fired the FBI boss; Trump well might have sought to bully the FBI into backing off its investigation of the president’s campaign and whether it colluded with Russians seeking to sway the 2016 election.

Then we have the Emoluments Clause issue, and questions about whether Trump’s businesses have been enriched by contracts with foreign governments. The U.S. Constitution prohibits presidents from obtaining any such financial gain, yet the president continues to hold onto his worldwide business interests.

I suppose I could mention the continuing string of lies and defamatory statements he makes about his predecessor as president, the woman he defeated in 2016 and any number of individuals and organizations opposing him.

What happens, too, if he crosses yet another “red line” by restricting the media from doing their job, which the Constitution guarantees them the right to do without government interference?

Ladies and gents, we have elected someone who continues to demonstrate every single day that he doesn’t know what the hell he is doing. He is unfit for the office he holds. He is making a mockery of the presidency and, sad to say, of the greatest nation on Earth.

His legislative agenda — whatever it is! — is going nowhere. Jobs bill? The wall? Tax reform? Health care overhaul? How does he do any of it while the tempest over what the Trump calls “the Russia thing” continues to boil over?

Are you frightened yet? I damn sure am.

In Trump World: Buck stops … somewhere else

Commanders in chief are supposed to know a fundamental truth about sitting atop a large and complex military chain of command.

They are allowed to take some of the credit for success, but they also must take responsibility when missions don’t go according to plan.

Donald J. Trump signed off on a mission to kill or capture some top al-Qaeda leaders, to collect some intelligence on the terror network and, presumably, to return all the men assigned to carry out the mission back home.

The mission that occurred in Yemen in late January. A Navy SEAL, Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens died in the fire fight. A state-of-the-art Osprey V-22 tiltrotor aircraft was lost. Some al-Qaeda leaders died in the battle. So did some civilians, including at least one child.

Military and national security officials are still trying to assess the value of the intelligence collected. We keep hearing conflicting assessments. The president, of course, says it is of high value.

But the current commander in chief has done something that is quite extraordinary — and inexcusable. He is laying the blame for Petty Officer Owens’ death on the military planners. “They” lost the SEAL, Trump has said.

Wait a flippin’ minute, Mr. President! The buck is supposed to stop at your desk. One of your predecessors, President Truman, famously posted the sign on his Oval Office desk that said “The Buck Stops Here.” President Kennedy once declared that “victory has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan” after the failed Bay of Pigs operation shortly after he became president.

Trump’s response? He has declared that the planning for the Yemen raid was done by President Obama’s national security team. They crafted the plan that failed, Trump has implied. It’s their fault, too!

This is not what commanders in chief do. Under any other circumstance, presidents stand up and take the heat when things go badly. They do not blame others — namely the military brass or their predecessors. JFK’s failed mission in Cuba was actually conceived by his predecessor, President Eisenhower, but the new guy took the hickey, accepted full responsibility for the mission’s failure.

A military man who just a few years later would become commander in chief himself, devised a strategy to liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. Army Gen. Dwight Eisenhower — supreme commander of Allied Forces — launched the D-Day invasion of Normandy, France in June 1944. The mission succeeded, Europe would be liberated.

But Ike had written an alternative announcement he would have read over the radio had the mission failed. In the message that was never broadcast, he took full responsibility for its failure.

That is what leaders do.

I am not going to wander into the muck over whether the Yemen raid was a success or failure. The president’s assertion that the generals were to blame for the death of a brave young SEAL suggests to me that he has doubts about the mission’s overall success.

Whatever the case, the event occurred on the commander in chief’s watch and it is that person — no one else — who should be held fully accountable.

This farewell won’t be your usual farewell

I miss Barack H. Obama already … and he’s still on the job as president of the United States.

Tonight, though, he’s going to bid us all farewell in a speech delivered in Chicago. I don’t usually remember specifics of presidential farewells, other than recalling how I felt in real time as they were delivering them.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509052320/obamas-farewell-address-how-presidents-use-this-moment-of-reflection

I anticipate a mixed feeling tonight as I listen to President Obama recount his successes and, perhaps, his failures. As with all presidents, they have their high- and low-water marks.

My appreciation for this man hinges on the dignity he brought to the office. He stood proudly as the leader of the free world and as commander in chief. He seemed to wear both titles well, which is saying something for the latter, given that he didn’t serve in the military. He brought a certain bearing to that role.

I trust, too, he’ll remind us yet again about how difficult life had gotten in this country when he became president. He’ll tell us of the measures he pushed through Congress to stimulate a collapsing economy.

Yes, I’ll miss him.

It might be as well that my feelings for Barack Obama — and his family — are tinged in large measure by the feeling I harbor toward his successor. I won’t belabor that particular point here, except to say that the juxtaposition of those two emotions highlights and underscores my sense of sadness as I watch the current president say goodbye.

I won’t predict that we’ll hear a signature phrase that we’ll take away from this speech tonight, but neither will I be surprised to hear one. I guess the most memorable of those phrases in my lifetime came from President Eisenhower, a one-time general of the Army and hero of World War II, who warned of the “military-industrial complex” wielding too much power in the future.

Imagine such an admonition, coming from Ike, of all people!

It’ll be a watershed moment to be sure.

What? Now he dumps inaugural parade announcer?

You can’t see me doing it, but I am shaking my head at this very moment.

The president-elect has decided to toss aside a man who’s announced the inaugural parade for the past 60 years.

He goes back to President Eisenhower’s second inaugural in 1957. He’s called them all for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Charles Brotman won’t be announcing this year’s inaugural parade because Donald J. Trump has thrown him over in favor of a freelance announcer named Steve Ray.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/313240-trump-dumps-inaugural-parade-announcer-who-has-done-them-for-60

Brotman said he was “heartbroken” and “destroyed” when he heard the news. Gentleman that he is, he says he wishes Ray well — but isn’t sure if he’ll attend the inaugural.

To be fair, the Trump team has paid tribute to Brotman, calling him “the voice” of the inaugural.

But this seems — to me, at least — to be one of those changes that is being made just for the sake of change.

Go figure, man.

 

Obama and Trump: no longer BFFs

That didn’t last long.

President Barack Obama pledged to do all he could to ensure a “smooth transition” to the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Now we hear that the men are at each other’s throats. They’re sniping from lecture podiums and over social media.

Trump has been sniping at the president over his decision to forgo a U.N. Security Council veto of a resolution that condemns Israel for its construction of settlements on the West Bank. The president, meanwhile, is talking out loud about the dangers of isolating the United States from the rest of the world.

How will all of this — and more — affect the transition? No one can yet determine how the men’s staffs will work together. Indeed, that’s where the transition must occur without a hitch. Chiefs of staff need to talk constructively to each other, along with other White House staffers. National security experts need to talk candidly about the threats to the nation.

Even though I shouldn’t give a damn how this affects the two men’s personal relationship, I feel compelled to recall an anecdotal story I heard some years ago about two earlier presidents.

Harry Truman left the presidency after Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952. The two partisans despised each other. Truman, the Democrat, couldn’t stomach the idea that Eisenhower, the Republican, would occupy the Oval Office. They barely spoke to each other during the transition.

The men reportedly set aside their personal antipathy at the funeral of another president a decade later. President Kennedy was gunned down and Give ‘Em Hell Harry and Ike managed to patch up their personal relations as they joined the rest of the country in bidding farewell to JFK. Did they realize at that time that life, indeed, is too short to harbor grudges? Perhaps.

No one really expects Obama and Trump to become BFFs. Given the mercurial temperament that Trump exhibits — describing his meetings with Obama as “terrific” and “terrible” in the same week — one cannot predict how the president-elect is going to respond.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about the graciousness extended to him and his staff by President George W. Bush’s team in 2009. The transition from President Clinton to Bush in 2001, as we have learned, wasn’t quite so smooth with reports of keyboards missing the letter “W” and other pranks being pulled.

The stakes are much greater, of course, when rocky transitions involve heads of state instructing their staffs to undermine the other guy in this troubling and unsettled time.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump have three more weeks to put this campaign behind them. Let’s get busy, gentlemen.

Trump redefines electoral ‘landslide’

trump-won-election-landslide

Donald J. Trump is measuring electoral landslides with a different set of parameters than most of us.

The president-elect keeps saying he won the election this past month “in a landslide” over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hmm. I wonder about that.

When I was studying political science in college, I always believed an electoral landslide — when talking about presidential elections — usually meant something akin to a 10-percentage-point popular vote margin, give or take.

The landslide elections in my lifetime occurred in 1952 and 1956, with Dwight Eisenhower’s two election victories over Adlai Stevenson; 1964, with Lyndon Johnson’s landslide win over Barry Goldwater; 1980 and 1984, with Ronald Reagan’s wins over Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.

The 1988 election with George H.W. Bush defeating Michael Dukakis came close to a landslide.

Then you can measure Electoral College landslides, which often don’t coincide with popular vote landslides. George H.W. Bush scored an Electoral College landslide over Dukakis; Bill Clinton rolled up big Electoral College margins over Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996; Barack Obama’s electoral-vote victory in 2008 over John McCain could be called a landslide.

Now, back to the president-elect’s preposterous assertion of a “landslide” victory over Hillary Clinton.

He’s now trailing the loser by 2.6 million votes nationally. Yes, Trump won the Electoral College vote by a comfortable margin, at 306-232 — but it ain’t a landslide by what I consider to be most people’s measuring stick.

By all means, Trump won the election. He’s going to be the next president. However, the president-elect needs to stop with the delusion that he won by a landslide.

It was a squeaker, dude, in a deeply divided nation. Furthermore, he would do well to listen to the views expressed by the majority of those who voted against him.

Trump is ‘botching’ transition? Oh, brother!

trump

Donald J. Trump boasted about his immense success in business, suggesting his business acumen was all he needed to take the reins of the federal government.

The president-elect might be learning that transitioning from private to public life is, um, quite a bit more complicated than he ever imagined.

Politico and other news outlets are reporting that Trump’s transition has turned into a “knife fight” among those closest to the president-elect.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-cabinet-transition-battles-231442

Some questions have arisen about potential conflicts of interests involving his son-in-law Jaret Kushner, as well as his daughter Ivanka. He has hired a man believed to be a white supremacist as his chief political adviser.

Trump only today received his first full-scale national security briefing from the National Security Council.

The fellow he picked as his transition chief, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, has been pushed aside.

Rudy Giuliani, reported to be Trump’s top choice to become secretary of state, is now under investigation over work he did as a paid consultant for foreign governments, posing a tremendous potential conflict of interest. John Bolton — the neo-con who wanted to bomb Iran five years ago — is another possible secretary of state candidate who has drawn a threat from U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to filibuster his nomination if it comes to pass.

Oh, boy.

Some government experience ought to be considered an essential qualification for the president. Trump brought none of it into his winning campaign. He cited his business experience as Reason No. 1 to elect him.

I thought earlier today about another president who took office after having never been elected to another public position. I came up with Dwight Eisenhower. All he did, of course, was command Allied forces in the fight against the Nazis during World War II, which I surmise suffices as enough government experience to prepare him for the role of commander in chief.

The next president is now embarking on the steepest, most arduous learning curve imaginable as he prepares for this enormous challenge.

He’d better start figuring this out. In a major hurry.

So wrong, so often on this election campaign

donald-trump4

Please pardon this bad rip-off of a famous poem, but … How many time have I been wrong about this election cycle? Let me count the ways.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning wouldn’t approve, but what the heck. I feel the need to atone for some terrible misfires on this presidential election campaign.

I take small solace — and it is small, indeed — in the knowledge that I am not alone in failing to shoot straight.

Donald J. Trump has confounded damn near everyone, first by grabbing the Republican presidential nomination this summer and then by making a race of it against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I once vowed to never again make a political prediction. I should have kept to my pledge. I should have buttoned up my pie hole/typing fingers and called it good. Let others stick their necks out.

But no-o-o-o! I had to weigh in. I had to make an ass of myself.

I never thought Trump would be nominated. I never thought this novice politician with the very big mouth and even larger ego could wrestle the nomination away from the Republican pros.

Then again, I never thought Hillary would run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and I thought that Colin Powell would run for the presidency in 1996. Neither of those things happened.

With that track record, I still managed to stick my neck out on this campaign.

Once Trump got the nomination, I was dead certain Clinton would win in a landslide. She was destined to be president, kind of like the way Ike was destined in 1952 for the top job … after leading Allied troops to victory in World War II.

I didn’t anticipate Clinton’s flaws being such a drag on her candidacy. Nor did I envision Trump ever being able to get away with some of the hideous things he has said over the past year: John McCain is a war hero only because he “was captured?; the U.S.-born federal judge being a “Mexican”; his mocking of a reporter’s physical ailments; his suggestion that Mexico is sending “rapists, drug dealers, murderers” and other assorted criminals to the United States.

I never anticipated that his GOP base of support would hold as strong as it has done.

Moreover, I was so certain that Trump’s flaws were so egregious that I actually blogged that Hillary could win a 50-state sweep this fall.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/time-to-handicap-the-fall-election/

OK, with all of that out of the way, I am going to make another stab at fulfilling an earlier pledge.

I am — once again — declaring myself to be out of the political predicting game.

I lack the intuitive powers, perhaps even the intellect to try to guess what voters are going to do.

If you catch me falling off the wagon again, you are welcome to call the guys in the white coats. I won’t be silent. There will be more commentary to come. Just no predicting.

I’m just going to wait this spectacle out … and hope for the best.

Can the candidates keep a secret?

nsa-logo1

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, respectively — are set to receive briefings from President Obama’s national security team.

The question keeps bugging me: Will they both receive identical briefings and will they get information that is at matching levels of security clearance?

Trump’s penchant for shooting off his mouth has become somewhat legendary as he campaigns for president. Clinton, too, has problems — allegedly — with protecting national security information.

Of the two, my sense is that Clinton — given her troubles over her use of personal e-mail servers while she was secretary of state — is going to be extra careful with any information she gets from Obama’s national security team.

Trump? I’m not so sure.

This has been a custom dating back to the 1952 when President Truman’s team decided to share this information with Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, the candidates who sought to succeed Give ‘Em Hell Harry.

The intent is to avoid the new president from getting too much of a surprise when he or she takes office. Harry Truman took office in April 1945 and wasn’t told until 12 days after being sworn in after President Roosevelt’s death that, um, we had been doing research on a secret weapon in New Mexico that might end World War II in a hurry.

It was the atomic bomb!

I’m going to assume — yes, I know that’s a dangerous thing to do — that the information given to Clinton and Trump will be given in the strictest confidence. That means the people giving it will be sworn to secrecy, as well as the people receiving it.

Are they bound by any rule that requires them to give Trump the same intelligence briefing they give to Clinton?

More to the point, can the intelligence briefers and the candidates keep it all of it a secret?