Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Was it a terror attack … or something else?

egypt air

I’m puzzled.

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump bellowed that he is absolutely certain it was a terrorist attack.

Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton said in more restrained tones that it appears to be an act of terror.

Greek aviation officials said mechanical failure likely wasn’t the cause.

FBI director James Comey has dispatched the finest investigators in the world to the scene of the tragedy.

Everyone seems to think the downing of EgyptAir 804 was the act of the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or some other nefarious, evil group.

Where, though, are the claims of responsibility?

History tells us that ISIS is quick to take “credit” for these evil acts. Al-Qaeda is a little slower to do so, but not this slow.

Indeed, terrorist groups want the world to know they have succeeded in committing these terrible deeds. In the case of this tragedy, 66 people have died. The jetliner was en route from Paris to Cairo when it veered 90 degrees and then spun in a circle before apparently plummeting into the Mediterranean Sea near the Greek island of Karpathos.

So, the question must be asked: Was it an act of terror?

The latest news is that sensors reportedly detected smoke inside the plane moments before it plunged into the sea.

Was it mechanical or electrical failure after all?

Let’s turn for just a moment to the politics of it all.

Perhaps you heard Trump say immediately that terrorists did this, that anything less than an all-out retaliatory strike against ISIS would be a sign of weakness.

Clinton didn’t want to be left on the sidelines, as she, too, sought to lay blame, although not with the bellicosity that Trump exhibited.

There remains a good chance that search teams will find the flight data recorders on the sea bottom. Absent any declaration of responsibility from terrorists, it would be wise in the extreme to see what’s contained in those recorders.

 

 

Has conflict frayed Trump’s fundraising efforts?

Oklahoma State alum T. Boone Pickens, Jr. fires up the Cowboy fan base during a tailgate party on the East Plaza of AT&T Stadium before the Cotton Bowl game against Missouri, Friday, January 3, 2014 in Arlington, Texas. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News) 01042014xSPORTS

T. Boone Pickens says he’s committed to electing Donald J. Trump as the next president of the United States.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, is far friendlier to the oil and natural gas industry than his likely Democratic foe this fall, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Pickens — a former Amarillo resident — made his immense fortune in oil and natural gas.

It follows, then, that Pickens would be in Trump’s camp.

But there’s been a hiccup. Maybe. Perhaps.

Pickens was going to play host to a meeting at his sprawling Mesa Vista Ranch north of Pampa on June 11-3. The meeting was for a super-PAC supporting Trump. It’s been called off.

Why? Pickens’ spokesman blamed it on “scheduling conflicts,” which often becomes kind of a throwaway excuse for anything that gets postponed, or canceled.

There have been reports, though, of strife and turmoil among the Trump campaign and its fundraising machine, according to the Dallas Morning News.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/05/t-boone-pickens-postponing-major-fundraising-event-for-donald-trump.html/

Which is it? Scheduling and logistics? Or is there trouble in Trump World?

I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing Pickens three times — the most recent time just two weeks ago. I don’t know him well.  I know a lot more of him, though, having studied him from some distance over nearly 30 years.

A part of me just doesn’t believe he would have announced a big event at his ranch without having nailed down all the particulars he needed to make it a reality.

And that kind of makes me wonder if the issue doesn’t lie within the Trump apparatus.

Pickens’ team says the event will occur later this summer, after the Republican convention.

We’ll just have to wait and see … yes?

 

Look for a load of unflattering photos

Donald-Trump-Bad-Hair-Photo-1

Political campaigns of all stripes employ a universal tactic when seeking to put the opposition in a negative frame of reference.

They find the most unflattering pictures of the “other guy” and plaster them on TV ads or billboards. You know what I’m talking about.

I get the feeling the presidential campaign of 2016 is going to feature a trove of negative images.

I’ll now get to the point: Donald J. Trump has taken us to a new level of disgusting references to people’s physical appearance.

He’s referred to women as “fat pigs.” He once chided former fellow Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina by asking, “Would anyone vote for that face?” Oh, and then he stood on a campaign podium and mocked a reporter who has a severe physical disability.

The Trump campaign already is looking for pictures of Hillary Rodham Clinton that it will plaster on campaign literature and/or TV ads. Rest assured, too, that the Clinton team is doing precisely the same thing as it prepares its onslaught against Trump.

I generally dislike referencing public figures’ physical appearance, but since Trump already has opened that door …

It seems quite certain to me that this individual’s rather, um, expressive face is going to provide his political foes with plenty of grist to use as they campaign against him.

donald-trump-gag-big

The world is full of such pictures of every politician who’s ever entered the public arena.

However, hold on this year for a seriously rough ride through what figures to be the meanest campaign in anyone’s memory.

The pictures are going to tell a major part of the story.

 

It’s over, Sen. Sanders

Bernie_Sanders_by_Gage_Skidmore

Democrats and Republicans seem to operate under differing rules of political combat … in this presidential election cycle, at least.

Republicans opened the presidential primary campaign with 17 individuals seeking their party’s nomination. One of them remains. He is likely the most improbable candidate you ever could imagine.

Donald J. Trump is a man with zero public service record, a scatter-shot approach to what passes as foreign and/or domestic “policy” and a checkered personal history.

He’s the last man standing among all those Republicans.

Democrats opened their season with just five candidates. Three of them are now off the grid. Two are left: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton’s all but got her party’s nomination in the bag. Sanders is hanging on, cheered on by those big rallies.

So, here’s what I believe should happen: Sanders needs to call it a campaign. He’s made his point — repeatedly — about income inequality and Wall Street corruption. He’s not going to be nominated president.

It’s time for him to clear the field for Clinton to run against Trump — head to head.

Democratic gurus are growing a bit restive. They see these polls that show Clinton and Trump in a close race. They fear that the longer Sanders continues his sniping at Clinton, the more damage he inflicts on her chances to become the nation’s 45th president.

My own view is that this contest shouldn’t even be close.

Trump is patently — at virtually every level one can name — unfit to become president. Yet he continues to win cheers from those who think he “tells is it like it is.” They rally to his calls against what he calls “political correctness.” The man is a buffoon … yes, a wealthy one, but a buffoon nonetheless.

Clinton is far from the perfect candidate. But she’s been examined up close and personal for more than two decades. Her career — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state — has been dissected more carefully than a laboratory frog.

She continues to fend off the challenge from the remaining other Democrat in this contest.

The primary season is over, Sen. Sanders. You lost. Hillary Clinton won.

It’s time for Sen. Sanders to “suspend” his campaign and then start writing the fiery speech he plans to give at the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating convention this summer in Philadelphia.

As for Trump … well, uh, keep doing what you’re doing.

‘Benghazi’ chairman admits what was thought all along

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reacts as she is introduced to speak at the Massachusetts Conference for Women in Boston, Thursday, Dec. 4, 2014. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

This item is making the rounds throughout social media.

To wit:

In the most outlandish version of this story, President Obama or Hillary Clinton ordered the military to “stand down” rather than come to the aid of the Americans who were under attack.

Earlier this week, a letter from two House Democrats to Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who is chairing the select committee investigating the Benghazi attack, revealed that the GOP’s own chief investigator acknowledged during the investigation that nothing “could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi.”

…In an interview on Fox News today, Gowdy responded to this newly released information by acknowledging, “Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that — they couldn’t.”

Chairman Gowdy, thus, has acknowledged that the four brave Americans who died in the firefight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, were doomed from the start.

Terrorists attacked the compound. They set it afire. They exchanged fire with security personnel. Four individuals — including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, died.

Ever since that tragic event, congressional Republicans have sought to deliver the goods on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They’ve accused her of lying, of covering up the events.

Her response to many of these allegations has been at times clumsy and inarticulate. There have been confusing answers regarding a video that allegedly sparked the riot at the consulate.

This entire tragedy has taken on a life of its own.

The central question, though, has been whether U.S. officials did enough to stave off the deaths of those who were killed.

Chairman Gowdy now seems to have answered that question.

They did all they could do.

 

Benghazi probe gets punctured

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, center, is escorted to a secure floor on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Jan. 8, 2016, to be questioned in a closed-door hearing of the House Benghazi Committee. The panel, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., is investigating the 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where a violent mob killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Benghazi has become a sort of buzz word in Washington.

It’s come to mean far more than it should mean, which ought only to identify the place where four brave Americans died in a spasm of confusion and anger in a firefight on Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in that Libyan city.

The term also has come to symbolize the ongoing effort to derail the presidential ambitions of the individual who was secretary of state at the time of the tragedy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has testified before a House select committee. So have others with direct knowledge of what happened. And yet, the probe goes on and on and on …

Now we hear from a former congressional lawyer who said, by golly, that all the parties concerned did what was humanly possible to save the lives of the four Americans who died.

End of argument? One might hope so.

But … no-o-o-o!

The lawyer, Dana Chipman, who worked for the Benghazi select panel, said there was no more that could have been done. The terrorists who attacked the consulate overwhelmed the facility in a surprise attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trey-gowdy-dana-chipman-benghazi-committee_us_5738db52e4b08f96c18373e2

That won’t stop Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., from continuing his pursuit of something — anything! — he can find that will undermine the presumed Democratic Party presidential nominee’s political quest.

According to the Huffington Post: “I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region,” Chipman told (Defense Secretary Leon) Panetta in the committee’s January interview with the former defense secretary, according to transcribed excerpts. “And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.”

So, there you have it. End of story? It should be. It probably won’t end anytime soon. Maybe it’ll never end.

 

‘People’ do care about these things, Mr. Chairman

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 04:  Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus participates in a discussion during CPAC 2016 March 4, 2016 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American Conservative Union hosted its annual Conservative Political Action Conference to discuss conservative issues.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Reince Priebus is painting the American electorate with a pretty broad brush these days.

The Republican Party’s national chairman says “people don’t care” about the controversies surrounding the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman.

“People” do care. Many of us — such as yours truly — care a lot.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-donald-trumps-controversies-people-just-dont-care?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

— Tax returns that Trump refuses to disclose to the public?

— Statements attributed to him about women?

— The myriad lies he’s told while campaigning for president?

— The ridiculous story about Trump posing as a publicist to promote himself?

Yeah, those things matter, Mr. Chairman. They speak to the character of the man who wants to become president of the United States.

I won’t get too far into this blog post without mentioning that Trump isn’t the only candidate with “issues” to address. Hillary Rodham Clinton has her own and they, too, are bothersome.

The issue at the moment deals with the huge speaking fees she collected — allegedly from Goldman Sachs .

The other matters — Benghazi, the email controversy — are being dealt with by a Republican-led Congress that is still on the hunt for something to derail her campaign.

The RNC chairman shouldn’t give his party’s presumed nominee a pass because of some belief that “people” don’t care about the things that are dogging his campaign.

I dislike saying I speak for others. I am fairly confident, though, in presuming that the nation is loaded with inquisitive voters who want these issues settled.

 

Hillary finds a worthwhile task for Bill

clintonbillclintonhillary_072815getty

I have been waiting to hear this bit of news. I’ve been curious about what might lie ahead for the next presidential spouse.

Hillary Rodham Clinton says she’s got a job for her husband if she’s elected the next president of the United States this November.

She intends to put the 42nd president in charge of “revitalizing the economy.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279973-bill-clinton-could-have-economic-role-under-wifes

Bill Clinton presided over an economic revival during his time as president. From 1993 until 2001, President Clinton — working with a Congress controlled by men and women who belonged to the other party — did what once was deemed impossible. The government reached a balanced federal budget. Indeed, it operated with a substantial surplus by the time Bill Clinton’s two terms had come to an end.

If there is one singular positive legacy from the Bill Clinton presidency, it is that the nation enjoyed tremendous economic health.

It came unraveled not long after Bill Clinton left office. Terrorists hit us hard, we went to war, the new president — George W. Bush — didn’t propose a way to pay for that struggle. The deficit ballooned.

Now, with another election coming on quickly, the former president is poised to give the next president a constructive hand in shoring up the economic recovery that most observers say remains unsteady.

“He’s got more ideas a minute than anybody I know,” Clinton said of her husband.

Great. Let’s put them to work.

Oh wait. First, Hillary Clinton’s got to get elected.

 

Unity? It’s not necessary, according to Trump

12TRUMPMANDATE-master768

There once was a time when political unity spelled success for candidates who traded on it.

In 1968 and again in 1972, Democrats nominated candidates for president who sought to win with their party in shambles.

In 1976, Republicans nominated an incumbent president who had to fight for his political survival against an insurgent.

In every case mentioned here, the disunited party lost the election.

Is that going to happen in 2016? Those of us who’ve been proven wrong at almost every turn about the Republican primary campaign should hold our thoughts to ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Donald J. Trump says unity isn’t a prerequisite for him winning the election this fall. The Republican Party is ripping itself into pieces over this individual’s pending nomination for president.

Big deal, says Trump. He has a “mandate” to keep doing what he’s been doing, Trump says. According to the New York Times:

“Mr. Trump, in a telephone interview, compared his candidacy to hit Broadway shows and championship baseball teams, saying that success begot success and that he would be foolish to change his behavior now.

“’You win the pennant and now you’re in the World Series — you gonna change?’ Mr. Trump said. ‘People like the way I’m doing.’”

Still, he’s going to meet Thursday with House Speaker Paul Ryan and some other leading Republicans to talk about, oh, unifying the party.

I’ve become more of a political traditionalist as I’ve gotten older. I once worked real hard to elect the late Sen. George McGovern in 1972. It didn’t work out for us.

I now believe unity is better for the candidate than disunity.

Trump needs virtually all Republicans — and a lot of Democrats and independents — to vote for him if he intends to take the presidential oath next January. My own sense is that he’s still got a gigantic hill ahead of him.

Far more women view him unfavorably than favorably; same with Hispanics and African-Americans. He’ll need far more of them if he has a prayer against the Democratic nominee, who likely will be Hillary Clinton.

Does he obtain majorities with those key voting blocs by leading a divided, disjointed and dysfunctional Republican Party?

For the life of me, I don’t know how he does that.

Then again, I don’t know how this clown finds himself on the doorstep of a major-party presidential nomination.

 

When did political spouses deserve the blame?

kennedys

A picture showed up on my Facebook feed with the caption: No one blamed Jackie for what Jack did.

Hmm. Interesting, yes?

Now we’re getting a lot of blame being tossed around at the wife of another president.

Times really have changed.

President John F. Kennedy was a seriously unfaithful husband. During the time he was president — from January 1961 until November 1963 — his transgressions went unreported by the media that knew about it, but kept it secret through an understanding: If it doesn’t affect his performance as president, it doesn’t matter.

Years later, long after JFK had been buried and his wife had remarried, the world knew of what he had done behind his wife’s back.

Have we blamed Jackie for what the president did?

No. Today, the calculus is different.

Republican candidate for president Donald J. Trump is now blaming Hillary Rodham Clinton for being an “enabler.” That’s a reason to vote against her for president, said Trump. Why? Because she was mean to other women who accused her husband, Bill Clinton, of being unfaithful to her.

The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton for lying under oath about his relationship with a young White House intern. The Senate acquitted him in the trail that ensued.

Does any of that have an impact on how Hillary Rodham Clinton would govern the country if she’s elected president this fall? No.

In fact, I saw another social media post that suggested that Hillary Clinton’s response to her husband’s transgression should be saluted, not condemned. The Clinton family stayed together. They worked through their anger and heartbreak.

Of course, none of us knows what they have said to each other in private. Nor should we know. It’s their business exclusively.

Perhaps the most ironic twist of all in this game of blaming a political spouse for her husband’s behavior is the reputation of the individual who’s leveling the blame.

Given his own highly publicized history of marital infidelity, Donald Trump has no standing — zero! — to challenge the moral rectitude of any other human being in public life.