Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Trump’s anti-CIA tweets are media’s fault

Let me see if I have this correct.

Donald J. Trump sends out dozens of tweets questioning the CIA’s intelligence-gathering ability while dismissing the agency’s conclusions about alleged Russian hacking during the 2016 election.

Then he blames the media for it.

It’s the media’s fault that it reported the president’s tweets.

Is that he said today while meeting at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-visits-cia-blames-tensions-with-intelligence-community-on-the-media-213121618.html

I admit to being slow on the uptake at times. This one, though, muddles my cognitive ability.

Here’s the thing that’s even nuttier. There will be those among us who will agree with Trump. The media have somehow made up something that the president himself stated about the CIA. Didn’t he criticize the spooks for sending out false intelligence about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction?

The media deserve criticism for reporting it?

Trump said this today while meeting with CIA operatives:

ā€œI have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth, right? And they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want you to know that there’s a reason you’re the No. 1 stop: It is exactly the opposite,ā€ he said.

ā€œI love you,ā€ TrumpĀ concluded. ā€œThere’s nobody I respect more.ā€

Which is it, Mr. President?

The world is watching a ‘great’ nation’s turmoil

I’m watching the news today and getting an eye and earful about how the world is reacting to Donald J. Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States.

I received this e-mail message from a friend of mine in Australia. He isĀ a worldly fellow, a keen student of U.S. politics. My friend writes: “We’re all praying for you … and ourselves as well. We’re all in this together. For historical precedent, check out Germany 1918-1939 or the Cultural Revolution in China. I honestly thought the extent of Russian involvement in the election was grounds for treason, but clearly the rules have changed!”

No mention, of course, of the women’s marches around the world that are occurring today.

I’m guessing women marched in my friend’s city in South Australia.

I won’t elaborate on his statement regarding pre-World War II Germany or what happened in the 1960s in China.

Suffice to say that, though, that the world — if my friend’s message is any indicator, and I believe it is — cares deeply about what happens in the United States.

What does that mean? To me it means two things.

One is that we are in fact the world’s most indispensable nation.

The other aspect is that the United States of America continues to be “great,” despite what the brand new president has bellowed to the contrary.

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 whoĀ 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 considerablyĀ 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.

Scorned women on the march

How does that saying go? “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”?

A lot of women around the United States of America are feeling scorned today, the first full day of Donald J. Trump’s presidency.

They’re marching on Washington, D.C. They’re marching all across the country. Why, even in Amarillo, Texas — where the president earned about 80 percent of the total vote — women were to march at Ellwood Park.

Their protest? They dislike (a) the election of a man who actually admitted to mistreating women and (b) the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who most pundits and prognosticators said would make history by becoming the first woman elected president of the United States.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/meet-the-women-of-the-womens-march-on-washington/ar-AAm5aKo?li=BBnb7Kz

I’m trying to process this collective march throughout the land.

On the one hand, I understand women’s anger, disappointment and pain. Trump campaigned for the presidency while hurling insults at many demographic groups — and that included women, who took personally his attacks on people such as former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and actor/comedian Rosie O’Donnell.

But … get this: Exit polling showed that Trump garnered more than 50 percent of the female vote nationwide. Statistically, that might have spelled the difference between winning and losing for the Republican presidential nominee. By capturing a majority of the female vote, does the women’s march overstate the concern that marchers are expressing? I don’t know the answer to that question.

It does appear that the national divide now is split not just along urban and rural residents, among racial groups and among socio-economic groups. It now appears split along gender.

A lot of women are angry today as the realization of Trump’s inauguration as the 45th president is soaking into their consciousness. Not all of them, mind you. Indeed, I know several women here in the Texas Panhandle who voted for Trump — many of them with great trepidation; however, others did so with great enthusiasm.

My advice today to the president? Pay careful attention to what these women on the march are saying. He should not want to be on the receiving end of women’s rage if heĀ scorns them yet again by ignoring their protests.

It’s done; now it’s time to get used to a new era

The deed is done.

Barack Obama handed over the reins of power to Donald J. Trump. The former president and his family jetted off to California. The new president took up some business in the Oval Office before dancing the night away with his wife.

I’ll make yet another confession: I’m not yet ready to embrace fully the notion that Trump is actually, really and truly, certifiably the commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

Yes, I know he is president. I know he won an election that seeminglyĀ everyone on the planet thought he’d lose bigly.

I’ve mentioned already that I’ve voted in 12 presidential elections. Five times my candidate has won; seven times he has lost. I know what it’s like to be on the short end of the vote count. Heck, the first election I voted in — that would be 1972 — my guy lost 49 states.

However, in every case I’ve been able to accept fully the outcome and move on … until now.

This one feels strangely different. It has something to do with what I still believe about the president’s unfitness for the office he now occupies. I get that not everyone agrees with me. Many of my friends here in the Texas Panhandle voted for Trump. They’re still my friends.

Still, IĀ ask you to hang with me. I’m likely to come around.

Eventually.

Trump fills two key national security posts … next?

Donald J. Trump took the oath of office today and the U.S. Senate managed to do its job by confirming two critical appointments to the new president’s national security team.

Senators confirmed James Mattis as secretary of defense and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security.

Two elements intrigue me about both of these men.

One, they are retired general-grade officers, both Marines, both of them with four stars each on their epaulets. You’ll recall that the president said he knows “more than the generals about ISIS, believe me.”

But … does he? I don’t think so. I am convinced as well that the president didn’t think so either when he blustered that statement while campaigning for the office. It was an applause/laugh line.

The second element that is most interesting to me is that Gens. Mattis and Kelly both contradict some talking points that Trump declared, also while campaigning for the presidency.

Mattis in particular has declared Russia to be a primary threat to our national security, something that Trump has dismissed virtually out of hand as the controversy over Russian hacking has escalated. Kelly, too, has shown to be his own man while discussing ways to protect the nation.

Kelly takes the point now as Trump’s guy in the fight to control illegal immigration. Mattis now gets to assess additional international threats to the nation — and he is seriously concerned about Russia. Perhaps he can persuade the commander in chief that he, too, needs to worry about Vladimir Putin’s intent.

I’m also fascinated that the notion of a retired Marine general with the nickname of “Mad Dog” is seen as the reasonable alternative to the man who nominated him in the first place.

These two men will assume critical roles in the new administration. One word of warning, though, is in order: Donald Trump now needs to concentrate aggressively on filling many of the staff-level national security jobs that are vacant.

He did vow at his inaugural that he would eliminate radical Islamic terrorists from the face of the planet. You must get busy, Mr. President.

POTUS goes to war with those around him

Get ready for this: I am about to give the new president of the United States a backhanded compliment for showing some serious brass while delivering his inaugural speech.

Donald J. Trump, standing on a podium surrounded by many men and women with whom he’ll work — the folks who serve in Congress — threw down the gauntlet. He said the era of doing nothing in Congress has ended; he said Washington prospered while the rest of the nation suffered; he accused lawmakers essentially of enriching themselves while the Ordinary Joe was sucking wind.

Did the folks on the podium feel the burn?

More’n likely.

However, if this was his effort to bridge the divide that has split the country, I fear it might have widened it — particularly among the individuals who serve in Congress. Indeed, the divide between Capitol Hill and the White House might be the most gaping of all.

Republicans made it clear when Barack Obama became president that they had no intention of cooperating with him. Now it’s Democrats’ turn to exact revenge on a Republican president.

And the president today perhaps gave them more ammo to lock ‘n load as they prepare to do battle with the guy who’s just dissed them so grandly … and in front of so many people.

Given that most of out here in the proverbial peanut gallery don’t really know about Trump’s ideology, we are left to wonder if his declaration of war against Congress is going to perpetuate the gridlock that gripped the federal government for much of the past eight years.

Here’s my fear: If Democrats succeed in blocking whatever Trump wants to do, there could be collateral damage inflicted by Republicans who launch their own counterattack.

Or … lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could get angry enough at Trump’s fighting words to stop government dead in its tracks.

Then what?

‘American carnage’ becomes Trump’s signature line

It turns out Donald J. Trump found a phrase after all that likely might stick in the minds — and perhaps the craw — of millions of Americans.

“The American carnage is going to stop right now,” the president said in his inaugural speech on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

American carnage.

Wow, man!

I guess the president has chosen to ignore the crime trend in this country, which is that violent crime is at a 40-year low. Sure, some communities have been victimized by evil-intended criminals. Chicago has been torn by waves of violence, as have other large American cities.

Does this portend a nationwide “carnage” that has gripped the nation, a place where all Americans are living in fear of being shot? I’m having difficulty understanding why the brand new president would send this kind of message out across the vast landscape of the nation he leads and around the world that continues to rivet its attention on what occurs in this country.

The president has painted a stark, forbidding and frightening picture of the United States. So help me, I believe he has severely misstated the condition of our great nation and has delivered the same message that fired up the Republican base to nominate him in the first place — and helped carry him to victory in the general election.

The campaign has ended, Mr. President. It is now time to unite the nation. Rhetoric that tells of a fictitious “American carnage” only does more harm.

This isn’t ‘peaceable’ assemblage, folks

Protestors have every right to protest.

They have no right to damage or destroy personal property, which has been occurring today during the inauguration of Donald J. Trump asĀ president of the United States.

I am going to submit that this is the most profoundly disappointing element of today’s events. No, it’s worse than that. It’s disgraceful.

Indeed, I get that many Americans are unhappy with what is transpiring today. I am one of them. Some members of my family are, too, along with some of my best friends.

I don’t believe any of them have burned motor vehicles or broken storefront windows or tossed things in the direction of others to voice their disagreement with public policy.

Those who are angriest are more than welcome to spare me the “this is free speech” malarkey. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s criminal mischief.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right “… of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Not a single word can be found in there that condones vandalism or violence.

Shame on those who have sullied a time-honored tradition.

So much for unity at this inaugural

I have a message to the new president of the United States, if only he receives it.

The campaign is over, Donald John Trump. You won. You’re the president. You promised to unify the country. You could have started when you delivered the inaugural speech. Sadly — in my mind — you didn’t.

What the country heard from the president was a recitation of the themes that won over enough voters to elect him president.

He painted yet again a dark, forbidding portrait of the greatest nation the world has ever known. He talked about job losses, a dispirited military establishment, fear of radical Islamic terrorists, a general feeling that the nation has gone to hell in a hurry.

This wasn’t your typical inaugural speech. It contained little of the high-minded hope that presidents bring to their high office.

Here is the speech in its entirety. Take a look and judge for yourself:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/full-speech-president-donald-trump-inaugural-address/ar-AAm3VY0

Believe it or not, I was hoping there would be at least a glimmer of recognition of the progress that President Barack Obama made during his eight years in office: dramatic reduction in the jobless rate; revival of the auto industry; huge reduction in the annual federal budget deficit; success in the war against terrorists — including the killing of Osama bin Laden.

None of that came forward.

Interestingly as well was the lack of mention of the dreaded Affordable Care Act, which Trump has vowed to “repeal and replace.” Nor was there a mention of the Iranian nuclear deal that Obama negotiated to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

He talked instead of restoring jobs, bringing back manufacturing jobs. Here’s a news flash, Mr. President: Those jobs fell victim to automation, not poorly negotiated trade deals; good luck if you think manufacturers are going to forgo robots for human beings.

I’m going to wish the president well — believe it or not. If he succeeds in all that he wants, more power to him, and to the country he now leads.

Failure, as the saying goes, is not an option.

If only he could have lifted our spirits just a little bit.