Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

Uncategorized

Here comes 'impeachment' talk

Wait for it. Here it comes. Are you ready for it?

Some talking heads in both the left- and right-wing media are talking about impeachment as it regards the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Oh … brother.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/208264-gop-senator-obama-faces-impeachment-push-if-more-prisoners-leave-gitmo

Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — who knows a thing or two about impeaching a president of the United States — now warns that President Obama could face impeachment if he releases any more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without consulting first with Congress.

The United States turned over five Taliban detainees in exchange for Bergdahl. The exchange reportedly took place without the White House advising Congress of it in advance, under federal law. Republicans are outraged — outraged, I tell you — that they weren’t so advised.

The White House has apologized for what it calls an “oversight.” That hasn’t stopped the uproar.

Sen. Graham — himself an Air Force reserve lawyer — once helped prosecute President Clinton during the 42nd president’s 1998 impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. The Senate acquitted the president and Republicans ended up paying dearly for it politically at the next election.

Some left-wing media pundits — notably MSNBC’s Ed Schultz — believe Republicans are waiting for the results of this year’s mid-term election before commencing impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama. The idea, according to Schultz, is that the GOP could gain control of the Senate and tighten their grip on the House, particularly with tea party Republicans winning elections across the country.

I’m hoping Schultz is just hyperventilating and will calm down once he catches his breath.

We’ll need to get some answers to questions about Bergdahl’s release and, just as importantly, his capture five years ago. Was he AWOL? Did he abandon his post? If he did walk away, should the Army court-martial him? Let’s sort all that out first.

As for the release, the president and the Pentagon brass were determined not to leave an American behind once we leave the Afghanistan battlefield. Bowe Bergdahl was the lone U.S. service member being held captive. The brass felt it was worth it to exchange five Taliban officers for Bergdahl.

Did they do it by the book? That, too, remains to be determined definitively.

Good grief. Let’s can this impeachment talk until we get all the facts on the table.

Uncategorized

Hillary is too 'centrist'?

What a strange problem to have.

Hillary Rodham Clinton likely will run for president in 2016. The right wing detests her, which is a given. Now we hear that the left wing isn’t crazy about her, although she’d be a far better alternative to whomever the Republicans likely will nominate in two years.

Hillary leaves left cold

The way I see it, the former first lady/U.S. senator/secretary of state is positioning herself in a position to actually win the White House. By my calculation, that means she’ll have to reach toward the center — which by definition means she’ll lean away from those on the far left of the Democratic Party.

Does this remind you of anything or anyone? I’m reminded a bit of her husband, the 42nd president of the United States, Bill Clinton. Do you recall the term “triangulation,” which defined the tactic of playing both extremes against each other to craft a centrist domestic and foreign policy? My trick knee suggests Mrs. Clinton might be willing to perform the same sort of balancing act.

Will the left-wing base of the party find a suitable alternative candidate? There’s talk of Sen. Elizabeth Warren or of Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who really is a thinly veiled Democrat.

I consider it a pipe dream if those on the left think they’re going to derail the Hillary Juggernaut.

The only possible way Hillary Clinton would appease anyone on the right would be for her to switch parties and become a Republican. That’s not a sure thing, though, as some GOP folks would concoct some goofy conspiracy theory.

In the end, the left will come around, just as the right comes around whenever the Republicans seek to nominate a centrist for president.

My own view is that centrist policies speak to what Colin Powell once referred to as the vast ocean of middle-ground opinion where most Americans find themselves.

It’s also a formula for winning an election.

Uncategorized

Ready for a GOP takeover?

Many of my friends, if not most of them, think I live, breathe and eat politics 24/7.

They may be right. One of them posed the question to me this afternoon: “Are you ready for a Republican takeover of the Senate?”

Yes. I am.

Do I predict it will happen when the midterm elections are concluded this November? Not necessarily, but it’s looking like a distinct possibility.

A few Democratic Senate incumbents might be in trouble. What’s more likely, though, is that Republicans will pick up seats that had been held by Democrats in GOP-leaning states. South Dakota is likely to from Democrat to Republican; so might West Virginia.

Meanwhile, Louisiana’s Democratic incumbent could lose to a GOP challenger. Arkansas was thought to be vulnerable to a GOP switch, but the Democratic incumbent there is making a comeback.

I’m not sure a GOP takeover of the Senate will be a bad thing. The Rs already control the House and pretty much have made a hash out of the governing process by its obstructing so many constructive initiatives.

If the GOP grabs the Senate, we’re looking at the possibility of Capitol Hill actually trying to govern. Recall the 1995 Congress, which turned from fully Democratic control to fully Republican. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, occupied the White House. The speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, turned almost immediately from fire-breathing zealot to someone who actually could deal with the president. He also had the Senate at his back.

Will history repeat itself? The current speaker, John Boehner, seems capable of striking deals — even though he has to say some mean things about the White House to placate the tea party wing of his party. If the Senate flips to GOP control, then we’ll see if the Republican-controlled Capitol Hill can actually produce legislation the president will sign.

Warning No. 1: If you seize control of Capitol Hill, you rascally Republicans, don’t try to toss the Affordable Care Act overboard. The president does have veto authority and you’ll need far more than a simple majority to override a presidential veto. The Supreme Court has upheld the law, which now is working.

Having said all this, I think it is simply wise to see what the voters decide in November.

The current crop of Republicans has shown quite a talent for overplaying its hand — e.g., the on-going ACA repeal circus, not to mention the IRS and Benghazi nonsense.

Although I am prepared for a GOP takeover, I am far from ready to concede it is a done deal.

Uncategorized

Button it up, Mr. VP

Dick Cheney continues to astound me.

The former vice president of the United States just won’t go away quietly. He keeps yammering and blathering about what a horrible job Barack Obama has done as president. He proclaims the president has demonstrated “weakness” in the face of foreign threats. He talks about the “danger” posed by the Obama foreign policy doctrine.

What utter crap!

Cheney the chicken hawk — who got all those draft deferments during the Vietnam War — keeps harping on the need for “military response” to any overseas crisis. Give me a bleeping break.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/18/cheney_obama_has_demonstrated_repeatedly_that_he_can_be_pushed_around.html

Cheney was at it again over the weekend, Monday-morning-quarterbacking recent moves by the Obama administration.

My hope would be that one day Cheney would follow the lead of the man in whose presidency he served, George W. Bush, and just clam up and let the one president we have do his job. President Bush, as has his father, George H.W. Bush, have been the models of post-presidential decorum as it regards the men who succeeded them in office.

In fairness, I cannot let slip a slap at President Clinton, who’s spouted his share of criticism at George W. Bush, who succeeded in him in the White House.

Presidents and vice presidents should assume a role of “elder statesmen,” which by definition keeps them elevated from the partisan political posturing that occupies current officeholders.

They’ve all had their time in the arena. They’ve all made mistakes. Yes, that means Vice President Cheney has made them, too — although he is so very loath to admit to the doozies that occurred on his watch.

Cheney’s post-vice presidential arrogance just is too much for me to take.

Put a sock in it, Mr. Vice President.

Uncategorized

'W' should have been there

OK, kids. At the risk of incurring the wrath of those who think I’m a member of the “Always Blame Bush” crowd, I’m going to weigh in on what some might perceive to be a sensitive subject.

Former President George W. Bush should have been among those attending today’s dedication of the 9/11 National Memorial and Museum.

He wasn’t there because of what a spokesperson for the former president said was a scheduling conflict.

President Bush had been invited. He couldn’t rearrange his schedule to make room for an event that surely had been on his radar for weeks, if not months.

President Obama was there, as was former President Clinton. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was on hand, as was former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, on whose watch the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo took part, along with former New York Gov. George Pataki and the current NYC mayor, Bill De Blasio.

Lots of dignitaries were on hand.

Not the 43rd president of the United States.

President Bush’s most stellar moments in office likely came in the hours and days after that horrific event, which occurred not quite nine months after he had taken office. The strength of character he exhibited in rallying a grief-stricken nation will be remembered forever. I admired then — and I do to this day — the way he stood in the rubble and declared through the bullhorn that “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.”

The world today should have heard from the president on whose watch this nation was battered and scarred.

Scheduling conflict? It just doesn’t wash.

Uncategorized

Big Dog defends his wife

Karl Rove, you have messed with the wrong politician.

Remember when Bill Clinton told us in 1992 that if Americans elected him we’d get “two for the price of one,” meaning that we’d get his wife as part of the package?

Americans did elect the Arkansas governor and his wife has emerged as a political force of nature in her own right. Thus, it became quite problematic for Rove to suggest that Hillary Rodham Clinton — the wife of the former president — had suffered a potentially seriously brain injury when she took a spill in 2012.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bill-clinton-dumbfounded-hillary-brain-damage-talk-n105361

Enter the ex-president, who has come roaring out in defense of his wife. When you are critical of one Clinton, Mr. Rove, you’d better be ready to take on the other one.

“First they said she faked her concussion and now they say she is auditioning for her part on ‘The Walking Dead,’” Clinton said Wednesday in remarks to Gwen Ifill of PBS.

Ah, yes. The “faked” injury. You’ll remember that one, too. She took the spill and Republicans said the then-secretary of state staged some kind of bogus accident to divert attention from the Benghazi attack.

Rove now has denied saying what he said. He denied saying Hillary Clinton had suffered “brain damage.” No, but he did wonder why Mrs. Clinton reappeared after the fall wearing eyeglasses, which he said suggested she had suffered a “brain injury.” Brain “damage” or “injury,” to my mind the terms mean essentially the same thing.

President Clinton has put it all in perspective. “You can’t get too upset about it, it’s just the beginning,” he said. Hmmm. Is that a harbinger of an announcement from his wife that everyone expects … that she’s going to run for president in 2016?

Uncategorized

Monica's back; now, just go away

She’s back.

Monica Lewinsky is now 40 and she’s written a book. She has returned to the public eye apparently to sell a few copies of her book, to make some money and to set the record straight on what happened between her and the 42nd president of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-return-of-monica-lewinsky-106507.html?hp=r16#.U22Y5FJOWt8

Count me as one American who doesn’t care what she has to say.

Lewinsky’s role in the impeachment of President Clinton has been covered, dissected, micro-examined and analyzed to the hilt. It’s all been revealed.

She now wants to “move on,” and wants to “burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” You remember the blue dress, right? The one with the president’s, um, DNA that proved he did something naughty with the then 20-something White House intern.

He had denied doing it in testimony before a federal grand jury. Yes, he told a lie under oath and that became — officially — the reason the House of Representatives impeached him. The Senate put the president on trial, but he was acquitted.

The question perhaps always will remain, in my mind at least: How did a special prosecutor’s investigation into a real estate deal — which we called “Whitewater” — then involve what the president was doing after hours with a young woman?

I smelled a witch hunt at the time and I believe the prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, was motivated to find something, anything, to pin to the president. He found it when he discovered Monica Lewinsky.

She’s back, telling her side of the story. She believes she was scapegoated by the president and first lady — and their allies. Fine. She’s entitled to say it.

I’m already hoping she’ll now move back to private life and doing whatever she’s been doing since her moment of notoriety flamed out.

Uncategorized

Some critics are unfair, but not all of them

Peter Beinert, writing for Atlantic Monthly, makes a fascinating case in defense of those who are highly critical of President Obama.

Yes, some of the criticism is race-based … but not all of it, not by a long shot. The article attached here is worth reading.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/radical-republican-opposition-is-not-new/361536/

He takes U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson to task for making some outrageous claims about how Barack Obama has been singled out merely because of his race. Here’s what Beinert writes: “I never saw George Bush treated like this. I never saw Bill Clinton treated like this with such disrespect,” Thompson told a radio show. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States … that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”

Beinert notes that Thompson then said that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t like being black, which on its face is a preposterous notion.

Obama’s critics have been harsh. Have they been any more strident than those who went after, say, Preident Bill Clinton? Hardly.

Beinert makes some interesting comparisons between the two presidents’ critics. My all-time “favorite” criticism of Bill Clinton came from the late preacher Jerry Falwell, who sponsored a video called “The Clinton Chronicles” that suggested — no, it actually accused — that Bill and Hillary Clinton orchestrated the murder of long-time friend and adviser Vince Foster, who committed suicide early in the Clinton presidency.

Let’s also point out here that Beinert is a left-leaning journalist who generally is friendly toward policies advocated by progressive politicians.

He is right to calm down those who suggest things such as those brought forward by Rep. Thompson that all criticism of President Obama is race-based and is uniquely harsh.

Bill Clinton surely would disagree.

Uncategorized

'W' surprises us with records release

George W. Bush presided over one of the more secretive administrations of the past century.

Thus, it is a pleasant surprise to see him prepare to release many of his previously classified presidential papers so openly and quickly after his two terms as president have concluded.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/george-w-bush-white-house-records-105851.html?hp=t1

President Bush is drawing deservedly high praise for this impending document release.

Politico sought the information about the Bush papers in a Freedom of Information request. The papers will reveal plenty of information and “talking points” used by the president and his chief aides.

Why is this important? Because it helps historians gain a fuller picture of a two-term presidency that — during its very first year — was jolted into a war by terrorists who flew those jetliners into buildings in New York and Washington. The war framed the rest of the Bush presidency and created a political climate the likes of which never had been seen in this country.

Observers note that President Bush is planning to be much more forthcoming in the document release than his immediate predecessor, President Bill Clinton. Some have concluded that Bush feels he has little to lose and much to gain by releasing the documents. Whatever the motivation, it is a welcome change from the manner in which the Bush administration at times conducted the affairs of state and government.

As Politico reports, “The high marks Bush is receiving for his letter are startling, since historians and a media coalition complained loudly and bitterly in 2001 about an executive order he issued ceding additional power to former presidents to prevent disclosure of their records. A judge struck down part of the order in 2007.”

The change of heart is welcome. A curious nation will look forward to seeing what’s in the record.

Uncategorized

HRC fires another 'campaign' salvo

Hillary Rodham Clinton ventured to the city of my birth and delivered what sounds to me like yet another shot in her still-to-be-announced campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Speaking to the World Affairs Council of Oregon in Portland, Clinton said the current no-compromise political climate in Washington has hurt the United States.

Gee, do you think?

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/hillary_clinton_tells_portland.html#incart_river_default

She’s saying far more than the obvious, of course. “Don’t vote for people who proudly tell you they won’t compromise,” she said to the crowd that jammed the hall to hear her words.

Indeed, Americans have gotten an overdose of what happens when zealots place their hands on the controls of government … which is that government stops working. They don’t know how to operate the levers. They refuse to listen to other points of view. They cannot bend for fear of breaking. They believe their way is the right way and other guys’ view will doom the country to, well, a miserable future.

Clinton is married to a man who knew how to compromise when he served as the 42nd president of the United States. Bill Clinton famously enacted the strategy called “triangulation,” in which he played both extremes — left and right — against each other to come up with policies that tracked more or less down the middle.

Indeed, the nation’s greatest legislators of the past 100 years or so knew “compromise” isn’t a four-letter word. They worked well with legislators on the other side: Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Hubert Humphrey, Everett Dirksen, Sam Rayburn, Mark Hatfield, Lyndon Johnson, the list can go on for a long time, but you get my drift.

My strong sense as well is that Clinton well might have included the current president in the “no compromise” category of modern politicians. Barack Obama blames Republicans for refusing to bend; the GOP fires back with some credibility that the president is afflicted with the same malady.

OK, so Clinton has said she’s “thinking about” running for president in two years. Duh!

Let’s prepare for a lot more of these kinds of talks from the former secretary of state and U.S. senator.