Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Ricks on McMaster: Quit and save your reputation

Thomas E. Ricks has written one of the more astonishing political columns I’ve seen in a good while.

The Pulitzer Prize winner, writing in Politico, says that national security adviser H.R. McMaster should resign his post to salvage his stellar reputation as a military thinker and strategist.
McMaster is on active duty in the U.S. Army. He’s a lieutenant general known for his intellect, integrity and courage. He wrote a book, “Dereliction of Duty,” that provides a scathing critique of how the chain of command prosecuted the Vietnam War.

Here is a snippet from Ricks’ essay in Politico: “McMaster probably thinks that by staying at his post, rather than resigning in disgust, he is doing his duty. Specifically, he may think that if stepped down, he might well be succeeded by an alt-right ally of White House adviser Steve Bannon. As I said, I used to believe that too.

“But I have watched and waited, and I don’t see McMaster improving Trump. Rather, what I have seen so far is Trump degrading McMaster. In fact, nothing seems to change Trump. He continues to stumble through his foreign policy—embracing autocrats, alienating allies and embarrassing Americans who understand that NATO has helped keep peace in Europe for more than 65 years.”

Ricks’ concern about an Army officer he has known for 20 years is that he now works for someone who knows nothing about government and seems to have no interest in learning the ins and outs of governing the greatest nation on Earth.

Yet the general has to provide political cover for a president who, in Ricks’ view, doesn’t deserve to hold the office he now occupies.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/28/general-mcmaster-step-downand-let-trump-be-trump-215199

As Ricks writes: “The saving grace of Donald Trump as president is his incompetence. He knows almost nothing of how the federal government works. He seems to have been repeatedly surprised by the checks and balances written into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. And he seems uninterested in learning.”

Ricks’ essay is a beaut. I am quite sure that Gen. McMaster has read it. Whether he takes it to heart — and acts on it — of course only he can answer.

Climate change, Mr. President?

Let’s take a breather from “negative press covfefe” for a moment or two and zero in on something of considerably more significance.

That would be climate change and the future of Planet Earth — and whether the world’s most powerful nation will take part in a worldwide effort to protect the planet.

Reports have surfaced that Donald J. Trump is leaning toward pulling the United States out of the Paris Accord, which was signed by virtually every nation on Earth to battle climate change.

It’s a measure, according to the media, for the president to “put America first.” Good grief!

Two nations didn’t sign the accord: Syria and Nicaragua. The rest of the world signed on. It is meant to signal a global commitment to mitigate the consequences of what the vast majority of pertinent scientific minds have concluded: that humankind’s activity has contributed to the changing climate. Carbon emissions and deforestation are products of industrial development and all of it has taken a devastating toll on the world’s ecosystem.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335838-climate-change-drama-grips-the-white-house

If the president goes through with this effort to yank the United States out of the agreement, most of us can predict worldwide outrage. A Trump decision to pull out of the Paris Accord would be nothing more than a sop to the Republican Party base that got him elected in 2016.

It also would be a bow to the nationalist wing of his inner circle, led by Stephen Bannon, the former Breitbart editor and spokesman for the far right wing of the Republican Party. Trump pledged to “make American great again.” How in the world does a “great” nation refuse to lead the world in fighting a global crisis?

It’s fascinating in the extreme, though, that other senior Trump administration officials want the United States to adhere to the Paris Accord. They include, and get a load of this list of heavy hitters: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, for crying out loud; Energy Secretary Rick Perry; son-in-law/senior policy adviser Jared Kushner; economic adviser Gary Cohn; and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

Can there be anything more that the president can do to infuriate our nation’s allies? He seems to be working overtime to find methods of angering our closest allies. Canada, Mexico, Germany, the UK, Australia and France all have felt the sting of Trump barbs; meanwhile, the president remains stunningly silent about Russia and that nation’s effort to meddle in our 2016 presidential election.

Trump says he’ll announce his Paris Accord decision “in a few days.” This ongoing story has tossed yet another crisis element into the stew that’s brewing inside the White House.

Here’s one more plea to the president from Flyover Country: Don’t pull us out of these accords.

Why not explain ‘covfefe’?

Donald J. Trump’s “covfefe” tweet has detonated the Twitterverse.

Social media of all stripes also have exploded with commentary, questions, bewilderment and confusion.

It seems to center on this fundamental question: What in the world was the president of the United States meaning when he wrote: “Despite the constant negative press covfefe”?

This is an example of one of the many failings of the Trump White House communications team. It cannot — or will not — offer a simple explanation of what happened.

Did the president hit the “send” button prematurely?

Did he get distracted?

Was it just a damn mistake?

The White House flacks won’t say.

Oh, wait! Maybe their reticence might have something to do with related questions that an answer might generate.

Doesn’t anyone vet the president?

Doesn’t anyone counsel him against using Twitter?

Does the president even listen, or care, what his advisers are telling him?

Oh, the chaos continues.

Griffin gets canned; ‘Madman’ gets a pass

David Axelrod, one of Barack Obama’s political gurus, poses an interesting thought on social media.

It concerns “comedian” Kathy Griffin’s disgraceful video showing her holding a “decapitated head” purporting to be that of Donald J. Trump.

CNN fired Griffin for her utterly crass stunt, which she initially thought of as an “artsy fartsy statement.” So long, kid. Don’t let the door hit in your backside.

But then, Axelrod wonders, how does Ted “Motor City Madman” Nugent get a pass for the endless string of grotesque statements he has made about, oh, Barack H. Obama. You know, things like calling him a “subhuman mongrel” and a litany of other vile epithets.

The president even invited Nugent to the White House for an intimate dinner, along with Sarah Palin and Kid Rock.

Well, Mr. President? Is there just a touch of a double standard here?
I’ll weigh in. I believe there is.

Donald Trump: linguist?

Donald J. Trump is a Renaissance man.

Real estate mogul, reality TV celebrity, dealmaker, serial groper (allegedly), president of the United States.

We can add linguist to his long and growing list of real and imagined skills.

The president came up with a new word. Perhaps you’ve heard it already. I am sure you have, as it went viral the instant he tweeted it around midnight.

He wrote: “Despite the negative press covfefe.”

There you go. That’s it. Covfefe. One’s mind can race through all kinds of explanations: Someone yanked the device from his hands in mid-sentence; he got distracted by something he heard on one of the cable TV “news shows”; Melania called from New York to tell him she wasn’t moving to the White House after all. Who knows?

I won’t join the h-u-u-u-g-e chorus of folks who are poking fun at the president. They all are much more clever than yours truly — which isn’t saying much about either them or me.

Trump didn’t take the tweet down for about six hours. By that time it had reverberated around the world many times. I only can await tonight’s comedic routines on TV.

I am left only to wonder yet again: How in the name of all that is holy did this guy get elected president of the United States of America?

Cell phone, Mr. President?

I get that Donald J. Trump wants to open up lines of communication between his office and those of other world leaders.

The president’s motives appear to be noble.

But hold on! He’s giving out his personal, private cellphone number to those other leaders? Is that what I’m hearing?

Whoa, Mr. President!

Cellphones aren’t secure. I keep hearing how they’re vulnerable to, um, hacking. People can listen in. Bad people can listen and do terrible things in reaction to what they hear.

And so the president of the United States wants to talk openly, and I presume candidly, with world leaders about the myriad problems facing the world.

https://www.apnews.com/11a48fde81634789b1cc361696693b68

If the president wants to maintain open communications with other leaders, I have an idea. Let ’em call you on the secure line in the Oval Office, or in the Situation Room.

Handing out personal cellphone numbers is fraught, shall we say, with some serious national security concerns. Don’t you think?

And didn’t the president — when he was running for the office — bellow incessantly about all the alleged security breaches created by Hillary Clinton’s use of her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state?

I am shaking my head.

How about those anonymous sources, Mr. POTUS?

This item almost doesn’t deserve comment. Aww, but what the heck.

Donald J. Trump fired of a tweet that cited anonymous sources after, um, blasting anonymous sources.

It’s become normal, I guess, for the president to do this kind of thing. Do as I say, not as I do.

* He blasts Michelle Obama for not covering her head while touring a Muslim country, only to have his wife do the same thing during his recent journey to Saudi Arabia.

* He rips into Barack Obama for all that golf he played as president, then hits the links with reckless abandon when he takes office.

* Trump leads rally crowd chants of “lock her up!” for her use of private e-mail account while serving as secretary of state, then he blabs to Russians about classified security information.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335598-trump-retweets-story-based-on-anonymous-source-after-blasting

The president retweeted a Fox News report that cites an anonymous source relating to his son-in-law’s current difficulty with “the Russia thing.” He did so just days after tweeting a rant equating anonymous sources to “fake news.”

Here’s a suggestion for the president: Take a breath and be sure about what you’ve put into the public domain before firing off another of those nonsensical tweets.

Griffin says she’s sorry for hideous prank

I am no fan of Kathy Griffin, the bawdy, often-gauche comedian known for her raunchy shtick.

So, when he begs for forgiveness from her fans for a hideous prank she pulled, well, she’s not talking to me.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/kathy-griffin-releases-photo-holding-severed-trump-head-47733306

Griffin took part in a ghastly video that shows her lifting what looks like a decapitated head — which was depicted as belonging to Donald J. Trump.

She says she intended it as an “artsy fartsy statement.”

It ain’t funny, toots.

She meant to poke fun at the commander in chief.

Griffin has apologized fully. At least she avoided one of those phony “If I offended anyone … ” non-apologies. I’ll give her props for that.

I’ll suggest, though, that she’s going to be remembered for a long time as the alleged funnywoman who went way too far with a joke that reeks of sheer stupidity.

Looking for the constructive, beginning right now

I am able to get reflective on occasion. This is one of those moments.

As I look back on the history of High Plains Blogger, I am struck by the thought that it is quite negative in its approach to discussion of politics and public policy.

Frankly, I remind myself of the people of whom I used to poke fun back when I was working for a living.

I toiled in daily journalism for nearly 37 years and I would hear the following from readers of the work I produced:

“Hey, I really like what you said the other,” they would say.

“Oh, what was that?” I would ask in response.

“Shoot! I can’t remember. I’ll have to think about it,” they’d say.

Now, if they disagreed with something I wrote, they likely could recite it back to me, virtually word for word and have a ready-made method for me to change my way of thinking.

That’s human nature, I suppose. I passed it off as such.

My blog is taking on much of that narrative.

Those of you read my musings know, for example, how strongly I feel about the man who won the 2016 presidential election. I’ve spoken frequently — and almost always angrily — about Donald John Trump.

I admit to being quick to point where I believe the president has failed, and is failing. I also admit that I while I’ve been long on complaints, I’ve been short on solutions.

I am going to seek to change — when it is possible — my approach to discussing this man’s time as president. Also, I intend to make good on my earlier pledge to speak positively of actions he takes, or words he says when the opportunities present themselves. I did so just the other day when commenting on a speech Trump made in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; I thought he sounded reasonable and said so — which drew some sharp rebukes from a couple of readers of this blog.

I get that we are drawn more readily to respond to negativity with more negativity. I lived through all of that during many years writing editorials and columns for daily newspapers. Readers get their hackles up and speak out quickly and forcefully. They are much less inclined to do so with the same vigor when they read something with which they agree.

So it is with this blogger.

Don’t expect a huge change overnight. If public officials mess up, I’ll be all over ’em like ugly on an ape; that includes the president of the United States. However, I intend to seek to add some constructive thoughts along the way. When they do something that pleases me, I’ll weigh in on that, too.

I never will forsake my humanity, though, by muffling my own righteous indignation.

Yep, the Russians are laughing at us.

Donald J. Trump tweeted the following, apparently early this morning: “Russian officials must be laughing at the U.S. & how a lame excuse for why the Dems lost the election has taken over the Fake News.”

It’s rare that I agree with the president, but I have to endorse part of the message he fired off today.

They’re laughing at us, Mr. President … just not for the reason you tried to articulate in this nonsensical Twitter message.

The Russians are laughing at the chaos they have created by hacking into our electoral system and by seeking to swing the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor.

To be fair, nothing has been proven — yet — about what they might have accomplished. However, every intelligence agency and expert in many countries agree with the premise that the Russians tried to influence the election.

Look at what has happened since Trump took the presidential oath.

The FBI has said it is investigating whether the Trump team colluded with the Russians; the president’s son-in-law has become the subject of another probe; the Justice Department has appointed a special counsel to examine the “Russia thing”; Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from anything to do with Russia; Michael Flynn was fired as national security adviser because he lied about his own Russian contacts.

They also might be chuckling and chortling over the president’s refusal to call the Russians out publicly for what all those intelligence agencies have concluded about their meddlesome ways.

Are the Russians laughing at us? You’re damn right they are!