Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Trump damages due process

bergdahl

Donald J. Trump proved beyond anyone’s doubt that political candidates can — and do — say anything without regard to the consequences to certain cherished American principles … such as, oh, due process.

While running for president, Trump condemned a U.S. Army sergeant as a “rotten traitor.” The man in question is Bowe Bergdahl, who is set to be court-martialed in the spring on charges that he walked off his post in Afghanistan before he was captured by Taliban terrorists.

He was held captive for five years. Then he was released in a prisoner swap with U.S. officials.

I am not going to make an assertion about Bergdahl’s guilt or innocence. I wasn’t there. Neither was Trump. Or anyone other than the Taliban terrorists and Bergdahl. That didn’t prevent Trump from issuing a blanket campaign-stump conviction of the young man.

Moreover, as the New York Times wondered in an editorial published today, the rants of the future commander in chief likely have put Bergdahl’s right to a fair trail in extreme jeopardy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/the-soldier-donald-trump-called-a-traitor.html?ref=opinion

As the Times stated: “Sergeant Bergdahl is charged with desertion and misbehavior in front of the enemy; a guilty verdict could result in a sentence anywhere from no jail time to life. But how can he get a fair trial in the military justice system when the next commander in chief has proclaimed his guilt and accused him of treason?

“The short answer is he can’t.”

The Army has charged Bergdahl with desertion and he could be sentenced to prison for the rest of his life if he’s convicted.

Trump’s proclamation of guilt of one of the men who soon will be under his command speaks to his utter disregard for the rule of law and of the due process that is accorded to all criminal defendants.

The Times suggests that President Obama might grant Bergdahl a pardon to allow him to “rebuild his life” and avoid what it calls a “questionable” prosecution. The Times states that Bergdahl had a pre-existing mental condition when he enlisted in the Army, which granted him an enlistment waiver.

Given the poison that the next commander in chief has inserted into this pre-trial discussion, the current commander in chief ought to take a hard look at a pardon.

Trump’s rhetorical recklessness only demonstrates his unfitness for the job he is about to assume.

Try to imagine this happening … soon!

Not too many years ago, President and Mrs. Obama welcomed back to the White House their immediate predecessors, President and Mrs. Bush, to unveil the official portraits done of George W. and Laura Bush.

The portraits are hanging on the walls of the White House, along those of all who lived there before them.

This video illustrates the remarkable charm and grace — not to mention the remarkable comedic timing — not only of Barack Obama, but of George and Laura Bush.

I’m now trying to imagine how the next portrait unveiling will go when the next president invites his immediate predecessor and his wife back for a similar ceremony.

At this moment, I don’t feel very good about how that will go with Donald Trump playing host.

Oh, how I want to be wrong about that.

Don’t go to Castro’s funeral, Mr. President

11262016_014338_fidel_8col

I won’t spend a lot of time and space making my point here, so I’ll get right to it.

President Obama shouldn’t attend Fidel Castro’s funeral in Cuba. Stay away, Mr. President. Now I’ll offer a brief explainer as to why.

When the president announced plans to normalize relations with Cuba, he did so apparently over Fidel’s expressed displeasure.

In fact, when the president visited Cuba in 2015, the then-former Cuban strongman didn’t see the president. Instead, he issued a statement that was quite critical of the effort to end the economic embargo the United States slapped on Cuba shortly after Castro seized power in 1959.

I get that the president wants to express sympathy to Castro’s family. Fine. Send them a letter. Place a private phone call.

El Comandante wasn’t too keen on improving U.S.-Cuba relations. He had his reasons, I suppose. Whatever they were, they don’t matter any longer.

Just stay home, Mr. President. Send an emissary. Maybe two or three of them. Our head of state, though, need not take part in the commemorating the death of a despot.

Good riddance, El Comandante

FILE - In this July 11, 2014 file photo, Cuba's Fidel Castro speaks during a meeting with Russia's President Vladimir Putin, in Havana, Cuba. Social media around the world have been flooded with rumors of Castro's death, but there was no sign Friday, Jan. 9, 2015, that the reports were true, even if the 88-year-old former Cuban leader has not been seen in public for months. (AP Photo/Alex Castro, File)

It’s been said of prominent world leaders that single acts result in what would be written about them in their obituary.

For Fidel Castro, such an act that no doubt will appear in obits around the world must read, “… who took the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.”

The Cuban dictator is dead at the age of 90. He outlasted 10 American presidents in one of the more peculiar political standoffs of the past century.

But it was a two-week span in October 1962 that remains the lynchpin of Castro’s reign of the island nation that sits just off the tip of Florida. He allowed Soviet engineers to build missile launch platforms in Cuba capable of sending nuclear-armed missiles against the United States or anyone else in the hemisphere. U.S. spy planes spotted the installations; President Kennedy got wind of them. The president then went nose-to-nose with Castro and his Soviet benefactors.

The Cuban missile crisis ended when the other side “blinked” after Kennedy ordered a complete naval blockade of the island and he did that after advising the nation in a televised address that any strike from Cuba against any nation in the hemisphere would be met by the full force of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Castro led a “revolution” in 1959 that overthrew a hideous dictator. Cubans thought they were being liberated from repression. They were mistaken. Castro’s repression was every bit as severe. His fellow Cubans suffered economic deprivation, loss of human rights and dignity, imprisonment, loss of liberty across the board.

Despite all that, the continued economic sanctions imposed by the United States stopped making sense a long time ago, especially after the Soviet Union evaporated in 1991. The Cubans themselves never did pose much of an economic or military threat to this nation.

President Obama finally moved to end the embargo and restored a semblance of normal relations Cuba.

Still, Fidel Castro’s legacy will not be a glowing one.

Obama’s remarks in response to Castro’s death were appropriately neutral. As the Washington Post reported: “We know that this moment fills Cubans — in Cuba and in the United States — with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation,” Obama said in a statement. “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.”

Enormous impact? Powerful emotions? Singular figure? Yes to all of that. Indeed, in the Little Havana area of Miami, they’re celebrating Castro’s death. I certainly would call that a “powerful emotion.”

So it is that this individual finally has departed the scene.

My feelings are a bit mixed. I am glad the United States has lifted its economic sanctions against Cuba. Still, the world is better off without Fidel Castro.

So long, El Comandante.

Open your eyes to threats to Obama

barack-obama-serious-expression_1048371_ver1-0_1280_720

Michelle Malkin is one of the nation’s more fiery conservative columnists.

I don’t care for her world view, but I’ll read her essays every so often just to hyperventilate a little, oxygenate my bloodstream; it’s good for my physical health.

Today, the Amarillo Globe-News published a little ditty from Malkin that deserves a brief rejoinder. She writes about what she calls the “assassination fascination” since the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.

Malkin talks about how all those meanies on the left keep saying they want to kill Trump. They’re echoing earlier meanies who said the same thing about President George W. Bush.

The only mention I could find in the column of President Obama came in a sentence in which Malkin asks why the president is silent on these idiotic pronouncement from aggrieved lefties.

http://michellemalkin.com/2016/11/22/from-kill-bush-to-assassinatetrump-the-return-of-assassination-fascination/

I’ll accept that as a good point. The president ought to condemn such talk.

However, let’s take stock of something else.

Nowhere in Malkin’s screed does she mention that Barack Obama received arguably a record number of threats against his life during his eight years in the White House. There were assassination threats being leveled constantly at the president. The Secret Service has been working diligently to examine all these threats against the current president.

Therefore, this “assassination fascination” isn’t a one-party monopoly.

I agree that such threat-making is dangerous and uncalled for. The lefties who say such things need to get a grip, take stock and understand the consequences of what they’re saying.

A columnist who launches into a partisan polemic, though, needs to understand as well that there’s plenty of guilt and blame that belongs to her side of this argument.

Why didn’t she condemn the Barack Obama haters for their equally shameful pronouncements? Oh, I know. It doesn’t fit her right-wing narrative.

Obama getting some belated love from citizenry

obama-veto

Among the many conventional-wisdom notions that Donald J. Trump blew to smithereens while winning the presidency involves whether Hillary Clinton’s fortunes depended on President Obama’s poll standing.

The better the president’s approval rating stands, the better Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency … or so the theory went. Historians predicted as much. Political scientists, too. Pollsters said it as well.

Wrong!

Barack Obama is now enjoying the highest approval rating since the earliest days of his presidency. He stands at 53.9 percent of citizens approving of the job he’s doing, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. His percentage of approval-over-disapproval rating stands at 11 percent.

That’s a pretty strong standing, right? Right!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

It’s just a percentage point or so greater than where he stood on Election Day, meaning that Clinton was supposed to win the election.

Wrong again!

Trump insulted just about every voting bloc one can imagine, except perhaps white, rural voters who flocked to him by the millions.

African-Americans? Hispanics? Prisoners of war? Handicapped Americans? Muslims? Women? Gold Star families? They all got the treatment from the man who would become president-elect.

It didn’t matter. That was another supposed truth that Trump turned into a myth.

So it is, then, with this idea that Clinton’s fortunes rested with Barack Obama’s polling.

None of it mattered.

Go bleeping figure, will ya?

Pols say mean things, then they change their tune

romneyandtrumpmeet

My friends and acquaintances on the right are fond these days of reminding me of something I knew already.

It is that U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said angry things to and about each other when they ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

Then Sen. Obama was nominated. He went on to be elected president. Then he hired Sen. Clinton to be secretary of state in the first Obama administration.

All was “forgiven,” more or less. The rivals became allies. Then they became friends … or so they said.

The pushback on this issue comes from those on my right and far right who keep yapping at my continuing observation about Donald J. Trump’s former foes/enemies are now lining up for spots in the president-elect’s Cabinet.

Mitt Romney is being considered for secretary of state; Mitt called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Rick Perry is being considered either for secretary of defense or energy; the former Texas governor called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

Chris Christie once led the Trump transition, then he got pushed aside and now he’s back in Trump’s semi-good graces; Christie once said Trump was “unfit” to be president.

The list of “establishment Republicans” who have condemned Trump is long and distinguished. Here they are, though, lining up behind the new president.

Sure thing. Democrats do the very same thing. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson weren’t exactly BFFs when they ran against each other in 1960; then JFK picked LBJ to run with him on the winning ticket.

I guess one’s reaction to this kind of political mood swing depends on your own point of view.

Therefore, I won’t apologize for overlooking how Democrats have played this very same game … at least not until my Republican friends acknowledge publicly what’s occurring at this moment in history with their guy and his former foes.

Obama takes measured tone regarding Trump

U.S. President Barack Obama holds a news conference at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S. August 4, 2016.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

President Barack Obama quite possibly might have written the book on delivering “measured responses” to shocking developments.

He is finishing up his final world tour as president and he told our nation’s allies in Greece, then Germany and now in Peru to “wait and see” how the new president acts before passing judgment.

That is wise advice, indeed, from the man who is awaiting the day Donald J. Trump takes office as the next president of the United States. That the next president is Donald Trump and not Hillary Rodham Clinton lends the shock value to recent developments regarding the transfer of power in Washington, D.C.

As Obama noted in Europe, a political candidate says things that occasionally are vastly different than what he or she might say as an officeholder. Campaign rhetoric differs vastly from governing rhetoric, he said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306963-obama-take-a-wait-and-see-approach-to-trump

Many millions of Americans are hoping that’s the case with regard to Trump and his wild and fiery campaign rhetoric.

Trump’s transition from real estate mogul/TV personality to the highest profile public official imaginable is well under way. He’s made some missteps in this transition, but he’s also made some good choices.

As The Hill reports: “Obama emphasized that seeing the ‘complexities of the issues’ upon becoming the President-elect can shape and modify thinking.

“’Reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues,’ Obama added. ‘That’s just the way this office works.’”

I rank the selection of Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff as a sound decision. That’s about it, so far, at least in my world view.

President Obama’s advice to the world leaders about Trump would do us all well back home. I’ll be critical of decisions he makes, but I’m going to remain quiet about how I believe he’ll lead the country until he actually takes hold of the levers of power.

Obama might speak out as a former POTUS? Bad idea

barack_obama_laughing_hd_wallpaper_-1024x680

Barack Obama is sending some signals that he might not leave the public arena once his successor takes office.

The 44th president of the United States might keep speaking out even as the 45th president, Donald J. Trump, begins his term.

Let’s think for a moment about that.

OK. I’ve thought about it. It’s a bad notion. I hope the president rethinks his temptation to keep speaking out.

I have applauded two former presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — for their decisions to stay away from the rough-and-tumble. Both men have declared their intention to stay out of the limelight. They both have said essentially the same thing: They had their time in the arena; it’s time to cede the spotlight to someone else.

I was particularly pleased that George W. Bush remained faithful to that pledge, particularly while former Vice President Dick Cheney kept popping off about President Obama’s foreign policy decisions. I urged Cheney to follow his former boss’s lead: Keep your trap shut, Mr. Vice President.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2009/03/follow-your-boss-lead-mr-vice-president/

Barack Obama’s time is coming to an end. He will have plenty of work to occupy his time while he returns to some semblance of a private life. He’s got a presidential library to plan and develop. He can set up a foundation that continues to speak to the issues near to his heart; the state of race relations comes to mind.

Should he provide post-presidential critiques of decisions that come from the man who’ll succeed him? I hope he keeps his thoughts to himself.

As many of his predecessors have noted, we have only one president at a time. The guy who’ll sit in the Oval Office will get plenty of hits from the rest of us out here in the peanut gallery.

This election’s fallout will take time to settle

constitution-burningb

I usually am not one to fret too much about the future of our country.

My belief always has been that our national resilience and the framework established as our governing document — the Constitution — would see us through the most troubling times.

The fallout from this just-completed presidential election is testing my faith in that resilience. I won’t throw in the towel … at least not yet.

Donald J. Trump’s election as president has challenged just about every conventional political norm we’ve all known.

Hillary Rodham Clinton had the money, the organization, the backing, the experience, the whole package that should have enabled her to win the presidency.

It all failed her.

As a result, we’ve got a lot of Americans all across the country lugging around a ton — or three — of bitter feelings.

We’re a “divided nation,” the pundits and pols are telling us. Really? Do you think?

We’ve been divided sharply perhaps since the 2000 election, which Al Gore won more popular votes but lost the election to George W. Bush. Except for a brief respite from that division — which occurred in the weeks and months right after 9/11 — we’ve drifted far apart.

Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was thought to be a monumental moment in our history. In many ways it was, with the election of the first African-American president. Then came the opposition not just to Obama’s presidency, but to the very idea from some quarters that the president wasn’t really legit. The “birther” movement sought to delegitimize the president. It became ugly on its face.

Do not for one moment excuse this hideous movement as anything less than a race-inspired hate campaign against Barack Hussein Obama.

Now we’ve turned yet another corner by electing Trump.

I’ve stated my piece already about Trump’s “qualifications” to hold the highest office in the nation. I won’t revisit those thoughts … at this moment.

I am hoping that as we move along toward Trump’s inauguration and as he commences his term in office that we can argue points of policy differences without the hideous personal attacks that punctuated the campaign we’ve just concluded.

Sadly, my faith that we can do such a thing, that we can set aside our personal anger over the result is being tested sorely.

This country has endured world wars, deep scandal, serious constitutional crises, a civil war, assassination of its leaders and economic free fall. We’ve managed to stumble and bumble our way out of the morass — as well as fight heroically against our enemies.

We’ve been resilient and resolute.

I am hoping we can find the resolve to argue our differences intelligently, even though we shouldn’t harbor any serious hope of settling them.