March 11, 2020--Germaphobe In Chief

Isn't it ironic that the world's best-known germaphobe, Donald Trump, may be in the process of being brought down by a whopper of a germ, the coronavirus.

I knew Trump was serious about running for president when he mingled in crowds and shook hands with people along the rope line without wearing gloves.

Years before that, occasionally in Manhattan, we would run into him and he always wore gloves, even in the middle of summer.

Even now, he is desperate to pretend everything is normal, claiming without evidence that the virus, like a "miracle" will soon just "disappear," the stock market will come roaring back, and in a romp he will win reelection.

Thinking about this and how Trump is behaving, a number of friends have been saying that the virus doesn't have to disappear to keep his supporters in line because, like his claim that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, he could bungle the response to the pandemic (as is currently happening) and none of his people would care.

They would go along with the talking points which assert there is no public health problem. Like Ukraine, like with North Korea, like behaving as an apologist for Vladimir Putin, it's all a media-generated "witch hunt." The coronavirus is a "hoax" intended to bring Trump down.

But what is unfolding is categorically different than "lock her up" or calling the press the "enemy of the people." By comparison they are benign.

What we are seeing now is hitting much, much closer to home. It is literally a matter of life and death. Not some insipid chant at a feel-good Trump rally.

For example, many of his followers have aging parents or are elderly themselves. They have underlying medical issues such as COPD or heart disease and they know if they contract the virus there is a good chance they will die.

This is not an example of a Trump-inspired cost-free political frolic but a deeply feared threat. So lying about this is very different than lying about Benghazi. Deception will not make the virus go away.

In crises like the Bay of Pigs or 9/11presidents are supposed to remain calm and help people get through the trauma, not make matters worse by being flippant or incompetent. They need to feel our fear and pain, not exploit it for their own political benefit.

There is one good thing--Trump has made such an obvious and blatant mess of this existential crisis that people are finally coming to realize he is a fraud and cannot be depended upon to make us feel safe. Even some of his own people. Making citizens feel protected is a president's most important responsibility.

The current situation then represents a huge political disaster for him from which there is no easy recovery. Even members of cults (or Congress) have on occasion broken away from their charismatic leaders. I expect that something similar will soon change the narrative for some of Trump's most fervent acolytes. 

The fun for them is over.

January 6, 2020--Trump's Benghazi

If you are still wondering about why Trump gave the order last week to "take out" Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most powerful military leader, it's simple.

It's not because Suleimani was about to launch a terrorist attack on U.S. troops in Syria, or because he was planning an invasion of Israel, or just that Trump wanted to wag the war dog to distract the public from his impeachment. 

Bill Clinton did a version of that in mid-December, 1988 just as the House of Representatives was about to impeach him. He had the military join Britain in bombing Iraq because they failed to comply with UN resolutions to not build weapons of mass destruction. 

It didn't deter Iraq but did work to slow down the process. Just slow it down as the House only a few days later voted two articles of impeachment.

Rather Trump has us bombing in the Middle East because of Benghazi.

Remember Benghazi?

In September 2012, in Libya, in the city of Benghazi, within the walls of a CIA annex, American ambassador Chris Stevens was killed by rebels along with three other embassy officials. The killers torched the facility and one or more of the Americans was burned to death.

Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time and Republicans held her personally responsible for not authorizing sufficient security to protect our citizens. It became an enormous political issue as she was preparing to run for president in 2016. 

To that end, in an act of political theater, three years later, in 2015, GOP congressmen hauled Clinton before the House Select Committee On Benghazi and put her through 11 hours of interrogation.

They and nine other congressional committees searched for evidence that Clinton and others in the Obama administration lied about and covered up the truth about the raid. 

None of the investigations turned up any incriminating evidence.

Subsequently, in 2016, Clinton became the Democratic nominee but was defeated by Trump.

Last week when Trump saw photos and videos of the fire-gutted facilities in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad that was attacked last week by Iran-supported Iraqi militia it made him think it was deja vu; but this time he, not Hillary would get the blame for not adequately protecting and defending our embassy and staff. 

The last thing Trump wanted was to be associated in any way with the Clintons, especially Hillary. To be linked to a woman when being accused of not protecting American interests was more than macho, misogynist Trump could bear. And thus he gave the impulsive order to assassinate Suleimani.

This is also a huge political gamble. If the Iranians respond with restraint that could contribute to reelecting Trump. But if things more likely do not go well his already riled isolationist base (including the likes of Fox News' Tucker Carlson) will be even more outraged and some, a few will abandon him. Perhaps enough to contribute to the election of the Democratic candidate.

December 3, 2019--Lindsey to the Rescue

Up for reelection next year, poor Lindsey Graham is so afraid he will be defeated and thus need to find a real job, seemingly with some reluctance but with less than gentle prodding by best-selling author, Don, Jr. and Fox's Lou Dobbs, he has agreed to take the lead in defending Trump in the Senate after he is impeached by the House. 

Yes, that same Trump who, during the 2016 campaign (Graham was a nomination-seeker himself but never managed to rise above 1 percent in the polls) after Trump mocked him mercilessly, calling him a "nut job" and even giving out his private cell phone number, Lindsey responded by telling it like it is--calling Trump out for being a "a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot"--in spite of all this GOP bad blood, Graham discovered enough Republican religion to agreed to begin his craven defense of Trump by trashing his old best friend, Joe Biden, who he once, choking up, said is “as good a man as God ever created.”

He used to say the same thing about his old best friend, John McCain. But that was then and this is Trump time.

Graham is so into his new role, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has already begun an investigation of  Joe and Hunter Biden.

Since he will be available for duty 24/7 and being a U.S. senator is a part-time job, since more than anything else Graham loves being on TV--check that, he loves even more caddying for Trump--perhaps in addition to the Biden witch hunt he can work in a few more investigations. 

I know he's busy so here's a get-started list--

Investigate Ivanka Trump's business dealings in China.

Find out which foreign government bailed out Jared Kushner's failed Manhattan real estate deals.

Probe how Donald Junior's recent book rose to the top of the best sellers list.

Discover how Jared and Ivanka qualified for security clearances.

Get Trump's draft records to see which foot had the bone spur that kept him from serving in Viet Nam.

To be fair and balanced--

Discover where Hillary Clinton's 30,000 emails are and while at it locate her server. Hint--it's not in Ukraine.

Find out what Hillary Clinton was doing the night our embassy in Benghazi was attacked.

Finally answer the question who killed Vince Foster.

October 4, 2019--Benghazi Redux

At taxpayer expense, I am sure, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife are galavanting around Italy, visiting diplomatic hot spots such as the Vatican Museum and the Sistine Chapel. And yes having a private audience with the Pontiff. 

He also may or may not meet up with Bill Barr, our Attorney General, who is also in Italy, also with his wife. I think more to chow down than carry out Trump's agenda for him--to get dirt on how the hated Mueller investigation got gong. 

The impeachment inquiry spotlight is moving on to the two cabinet secretaries, and I am certain they are happy to be hidden away for the moment in the Hassler. As far from Trump as possible, who in the meantime is again in Florida playing golf.

Did I miss the memo that it's already Spring Break?

When Pompeo finally gets home I have an idea about how to reward him for his loyalty and service to the country. Something that he can include on his resumé as he prepares in four years to run for the presidency. Of the United States--

Now that he has been caught in a baldfaced lie--after denying that he was in fact listening in on Trump's infamous July 25th phone call with the president of Ukraine he was compelled to admit he was and as a result will certainly be called to testify before Adam Schiff's impeachment committee. 

When he does so, I have just the person who should interrogate him, who deserves to do so--Hillary. Yes, that Hillary.

In 2015 Pompeo was a member of Congress and on the House committee that interrogated Hillary Clinton who had been secretary of state when our diplomats were killed in Benghazi. She was questioned for more than eleven hours, most aggressively, most mean-spiritedly by Congressman Pompeo.

Schiff is apparently planning to have most of the questioning of witnesses done by staff and outside council. Like what the Rodino committee did during the Watergate hearings.

Why look any further than Hillary? She qualifies--she's a lawyer and God knows would have the motivation.

I'd pay to be there.

May 6, 2019--Jack's List

"I hear you're coming my way."

"In fact we're already in Maine."

"Thought you could slip into my territory without my noticing did you?"

Jack was half right. We did get to Maine on Sunday and to tell the truth I wasn't that eager to be under pressure to see him.

"I'm ready for you," he said, sounding rambunctious. "In fact, in anticipation of your showing up I even made a list of the things we need to talk about."

"Need?" I had the hope that his catch-up list was more about the Red Sox and Yankees than Trump and Barr.

"Top of my list," he said, "is our attorney general, Barr."

So much, I thought, for the Yanks and Sox.

"Barr, for example. He seems to pride himself as being a linguist," Jack said. "A couple of weeks ago, to give you an example, in response to a congressman who was questioning him, he said something about 'abjure.' It's the first time I ever heard that word. And since it appeared that was also true for some House members, Barr smirked and said 'OK, forget the 'abjure.'"

"We have to talk about this? I'm not in Maine to . . ."

"It came up when he was pressed about his saying, the last time he testified, that the FBI was 'spying' on Trump's campaign and when he was called out about it he said, and I'm quoting. I wrote it down so you couldn't wiggle off the hook."

"What does his calling what the FBI was doing in its routine work, investigating possible criminal activity by some of Trump's people, rather than calling it 'investigating' them he used a loaded up term--'spying'-- to slander their efforts and make what's going on sound conspiratorial? From the Deep State?"

In spite of myself I was all riled up.

Ignoring me, Jack said, "Let me read a snippet about this from, I think, your New York Times: "Barr called 'spying' a 'good English word' and expressed no regrets for previously testifying that President Trump's campaign was spied on." Jack added, still quoting, 'I'm not going to abjure use of the word 'spying.'"

"You're exhausting me, Jack. Why do we have to talk about this. You put this at the top of your list? With all that there is to talk about . . . ?" Not that I wanted to talk with him about any of it.

"Like Clinton's, Bill Clinton's famous 'It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.'"

"I can't believe with everything that's happening this is what's on your mind. Top of your list." 

I realized Jack, cleverly, to snare my attention, was trying to divert me into a deep discussion, of all things, about Barr's syntax. Which is largely overblown and pseudo-intellectual. It's almost as if Barr wants to say that though I may be the illiterate Trump's mouthpiece, notice by my choice of words, mainly Latinate, and sentence structure, compound sentences, I'm not one of them. I operate on a higher plane.

I thought Jack was doing a version of the same thing. By plucking "abjure" from Barr's hours of testimony he was attempting to say something about himself. That he, Jack, operated on that high plane as well.

"I've got to go," I said. "But do me a favor."

"Anything."

Let's agree to talk about the Red Sox. At least until I'm settled in."

"As long as you don't ask me to abjure them as they struggle to get started this spring."

"Ugh."

"Or we could always talk about Benghazi. That's on my list too."

I hung up.

March 9, 2018--My 3,333rd Blog Posting: Suicide Is Painless

The one thing thus far missing from the Trump Show is a murder or suicide. 

In regard to that he's not keeping up with the Clintons who, according to the conspiracy-minded, as early as their first year in the White House, already had a few.

Vince Foster comes to mind.

He was a colleague of Hillary's in the Rose law firm in Little Rock and her suspected lover. He followed the Clintons to Washington and during the first six months of Bill's presidency served in the administration as deputy White House counsel.

One day, after not showing up for work, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, shot in the head. 

Many on the lunatic fringe claimed that the Clintons murdered him, though five separate investigations found that Foster, unhappy in Washington, had grown despondent and killed himself. 

For years afterward, Clinton haters did not accept that verdict, including Jerry Falwell, who, through the Arkansas Project, alleged that there were two witnesses who had incontrovertible evidence that Foster was murdered by Bill and Hillary. However, before they could testify, Falwell claimed they were killed in two separate plane crashes.

On late-night talk radio, along with a continuing drumbeat of accusation about Hillary's role in the death of our embassy workers in Benghazi, one can still hear ranting about the murder of Vince Foster.

Thus far with Trump, we hear about Playboy centerfolds and porn stars, but nothing yet about suicides or murders. 

Give them time. He's been in office only 14 months.

As things close in tighter and tighter on Trump and his inner circles, I anticipate there will be a few. 

Would one be surprised if Trump's so-called "outside" lawyer, Michael Cohen, who has created a fiasco out of attempting to obscure and silence talk about Trump's longterm extra-marital affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, took a handful of pills? 

He is clearly one of those Trump enablers who has been with him for years, cleaning up his messes, who feels as if he would take a bullet for Trump. Barring that, killing himself would serve. 

And, of course, this would have the additional benefit of Sean Hannity blaming it on Hillary. 

Then there is the strange case of Sam Nunberg, another Trump hanger-on, who until recently was also available to take a bullet for the big guy and who became a household name earlier this week among cable news devotees as he made the rounds of talk shows, muttering semi-coherently about being subpoenaed by one of Robert Mueller's grand juries. On the Ari Melber show, for example, he was so agitated that Melber and his panelists suspended normal interviewing and tried to talk him down from the ledge. 

As of this morning Nunberg says he will cooperate with Mueller, his is not off the wagon, and though he's still alive, he's on my watch list. 

And, of course, if he does do himself in, Rush Limbaugh can always blame it on Obama.

Would anyone be surprised if Paul Manafort was found dead soon after imbibing some exotic Russian potion? Either administered by the same operative who poisoned the Russian defector and his daughter earlier this week in London (he could have had an open-jaw plane ticket from Moscow to London to Washington to Moscow) or the polonium-210 could have been self-administered by Manafort who at age 68 is looking at 80 years in federal prison. That would make him even older than my 107-year-old mother if he managed to serve his entire sentence.

What with his literal million-dollar custom wardrobe, which he paid for with Ukrainian money, living the rest of his life in a 50 square foot jail in an orange jumpsuit with no belt or shoelaces is not that GQ. 

But again, if Manafort is no more, his demise can be blamed on Huma Abedin or Susan Rice or Eric Holder. 

And, finally, there is Trump himself. From the current look of him it appears as if he is eating himself to death. A few more supersized Big Macs, with his clogged arteries, who knows. 

On the other hand he'll have no one to blame but himself.

November 8, 2017--Jack: The Great Destraction

"So how are things in Moscow?"

"What?" I was busy and shouldn't have picked up Jack's call. I knew it would lead to aggravation.

"You know. Where you are."

"You mean New . . . ? Oh, I get it. New York City. Moscow. Communism."

Jack was already chuckling. "You and your comrades in Moscow by the Hudson must be feeling pretty good about my boy."

"Pretty good about Trump? That'll be the day. Maybe because he hasn't yet got us involved in a nuclear war? To be fair to him I should give him another a day or two to get one started."

"I mean how he's doing in Japan and South Korea. On his trip to Asia."

"In what way is he doing anything I might feel good about?" Jack again had me hooked. I should have hung up. We got back to New York just a few days ago after being powerless as the result of a tropical storm and we were having enough trouble adjusting to all the craziness in the city after six months in small-town Maine. I didn't need him making matters worse.

"I'm referring to what he just said about our talking with the North Koreans. How maybe there are signs that diplomacy could be working. He said that Tuesday at a press conference in South Korea. That didn't make me happy, but for you and your pansy friends that should have been music to your ears."

"I've heard this before. But before yesterday the last thing he said about trying to make a deal with them was to publicly tell his Secretary of State not to waste his breath talking to 'the little rocket man.'"

"That's the Trump I love," Jack said. "Republican and Democratic presidents wasted 25 years trying to get them to give up their nuclear weapons and what did that get us? During that time they developed atomic and hydrogen bombs and missiles that can almost reach America. I'm no fan of war. I was in the army. But we may be left with no option except nuking them. So when Trump talks about negotiations that buys them more time to figure out how to build bombs small enough to fit on their biggest missiles. Someone this morning on your favorite show, Morning Joe, said they're only a year away from being able to do that."

"Do we really need to talk about this depressing subject? Out the window here in Manhattan all I'm hearing are ambulance and fire engine sirens after months of listening to the sound of water in the bay and the birds in the trees and bushes. And now from you, there's more upsetting noise. So, give me a break and change the subject."

"OK. How about your girl."

"My girl?"

"Hillary."

"Not my favorite person. I had to hold my nose to vote for her. But you guys continue to be obsessed with her. She seems to be your favorite person. Don't you think it's time to fall out of love and move on?"

"Are you kidding me. She's the gift that keeps on giving. While you guys are locked in on Trump and the Russians, we have Hillary making life fun for us. A few years ago we had Benghazi. Now we have that uranium business and the fact that Hillary is behind the famous BuzzFeed dossier that supposedly lists Trump's alleged involvement with the Russians. And just the other day, when these were no longer on the front page, Donna Brazile came out with her book about how Hillary rigged the nomination, sabotaged poor Bernie, and bankrupted the Democrat Party. What a trifecta."

"But Hillary lost. She's irrelevant. Trump was elected and is the president. So he's the one that counts. If we're talking scandals and maybe criminal activity, the focus appropriately should be on him. Not her. You're trying to change the subject. Shifting the focus from him where it belongs to her who no one cares about anymore."

"Au contraire," Jack said, "To Trump people--and there are still a whole lot of us--she's still front and center. In fact, so much so that there should be a special prosecutor to look into her collusions. Just tracking down how Hillary sold 20 percent of our uranium to Russia justifies having someone other than Mueller to investigate it."

"Most of the stuff about her is made up. It's part of all the conspiratorial thinking you and your friends are so good at. But be that as it may, answer one more question for me before I have to go."

"I'm listening."

"Let's assume that Hillary did all sorts of bad things when it comes to the Uranium One deal."

"As they say, if it's true, 'Lock her up.'"

"OK. She's convicted of something and even goes to jail. This is preposterous but to shut you up for a minute let's assume that. So here then is the point--this is no way lets Trump and his people off the hook about all the corrupt and likely illegal things he and they did. Focusing attention on Hillary doesn't mean taking the spotlight off him. Were capable of doing two things at the same time--probe her dealings and keep the Mueller investigation of Trump going."

Without waiting to hear from Jack, I said, "But let's keep things in perspective--while she may have stolen the nomination from Bernie, with the help of the Russians he may have stolen the election from Hillary. They are not morally equivalent."

Jack didn't respond. 

"Your silence is making my point for me. You're primarily interested in using Clinton as a distraction. To turn attention away from Trump. At the popular radio talkshow level it's working. At least for the moment. You may be good at changing the subject--Trump is actually excellent at that--but Mueller's not going away and day by day, drip by drip, more of Trump's people are being shown to be implicated and at some point, probably two, three months from now, standing back, in full focus, we'll see what Trump himself and his cronies have been up to. It's not going to be a pretty picture and no matter what Hillary did or didn't do, no matter where she is, even if in jail, your boy is going down."

Still nothing back from Jack.

"You all will trot out more things to try to distract us--maybe even a war with North Korea, wag the dog style--but still his colluding and criminal behavior--likely of a financial sort--is not going away. What will ultimately happen I have no idea. But the truth will out. Only his rock-bottom 30 percent of dead-enders will believe all this is the result of conspiracies between the media and the socialists and the Clintons. But even you will know better. You're too smart to be taken in by that craziness, that paranoia"

Not a word from Jack.

"Then be sure to call me. That conversation I look forward to having."

Benghazi Hearing

July 12, 2107--Smoking Cannon

Some wag said, "It's not a smoking gun, it's a smoking cannon."

He was talking, of course, about the most recent bombshell about Donald Junior's dealings with the Russians. His pathetic attempt to give his daddy a present--the presidency.

Present delivered, but at what an ultimate cost.

Anyone with the last name Trump (or Kushner) needs more than a squadron of lawyers--he needs medication and a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

I'm not sure any of that will help.

Yesterday, when Little Donny was forced to release his e-mail stream about the meeting in June at the Trump Tower, no less, regarding a deal to secure Russian help in getting "dirt" about Hillary ("I love it!" Junior chirped), as of yesterday, a week short of the six-month anniversary of the Trump presidency, was the official beginning of the end of the Don's reign.

The Don is not an inappropriate moniker for him as Trump is more the boss of a political crime family than a credible commander in chief.

What to them is most worrisome (and if you have been following my scribbling on the subject I have said this many times) is the drip, drip, drip fear. In this case that Paul Manafort, who at the time of the meeting was still Trump's campaign manager, Manafort, the playmaker in the dirty dealmaking, who was at the meeting and I'm sure others equally damaging which will soon come to the light of day, will throw Donald Junior and Jared under the bus rather than spend the rest of his adult life in the slammer, while the two boys, tempted like Oedipus to blow the whistle and worse on their father/father-in-law, will have to suck it up and get ready for incarceration.

Unless Daddy pardons them, which I predict he will do within a year as he moves toward resigning.

To see how this is playing in TrumpLand I spent a lot of time last night, late last night, tuned in to talk radio, particularly Red Eye Radio, where the two hosts did their best to chuckle their way through the damning news, making as light of it as possible. To laugh it off, it seemed, was their idea of the best way to trivialize it and make it go away.

But since even they knew that wouldn't work, they turned to the Rush Limbaugh talking-points-of-the-day memo--if all else fails, blame Hillary.

So, I heard a lot again about her server, her e-mails, her own Russian connection (remember the uranium business?), and of course, the chart-topper, Benghazi. Resurrecting Benghazi more than anything else tells you how desperate they are.

As I said, drip, drip, drip.

November 13, 2013--Hillary in 2013

If anyone has been wondering if Hillary will run for president in 2016, yesterday there was clear evidence that she is already running in 2013.

From her principal surrogate--husband Bill.

Just the other morning, as Barack Obama's approval rating plummeted well below 50 percent and his disapproval poll numbers soared about 50 percent, Rona and I wondered how Hillary will run against her ultimate Republican opponent and the president she served as Secretary of State.

With Obama on the political ropes--largely because of the disastrous rollout of Obamacare--how will she distance herself from him? It will not work for her to campaign offering four-more years of what we now have.

Bill gave us our first public glimpse of her presidential campaign strategy.

Recall that when she was on ropes of her own after the early primaries in 2008--the upstart Obama was doing so well that it looked as if she was no longer the inevitable nominee--Bill was unleashed in South Carolina to get her back on track.

There he unabashedly played the race card, reminding South Carolinians, after Obama's victory, about how Jessie Jackson had won the Democratic primary there in 1984 and 88 and look what happened to him. The conflating of the decidedly black Jackson with the post-racial half-white Obama was considered by many well below the belt, even for the Clintons who take no prisoners.

Yesterday Bill was back in campaign mode suggesting very publicly that Obama should seek to change the Affordable Care Act to allow people "to keep their current health insurance, just as he promised" when Obamacare was controversially working its way through Congress.

Don't be surprised if Bill Clinton soon tries to put the blame on Barack Obama for the murder of our ambassador in Benghazi, Libya.

October 24, 2013--"You're Fired!"

As The Donald likes to say, "You're fired!" But in Washington, in this White House, those words are rarely spoken.

No one was fired for the killings at our consulate in Benghazi. No one was terminated for the Wikileaks leaks. No one for the Edward Snowdon N.S.A. disclosures. And no one from the Justice Department for likely illegally obtaining private telephone records for Associate Press reporters.

Basically, no one is ever fired for anything.

This, by-the-way, has been true for all recent presidents--who did Ronald Reagan fire? George H.W. Bush? Bill Clinton? George W. Bush? Pretty much no one.

A few were asked to resign, which is very different than being fired for good cause, and those who did invariably claimed it was so that they could spend more time with their families.

General Stanley McChrystal is the only Obama person I can think of who was out-and-out fired. For indiscreetly criticizing President Obama to a Rolling Stone writer. Compare that to President Truman very publicly firing General Douglas MacArthur in the middle of the Korean War.

But now we have another who was fired by the Obama White House. According to the Daily Beast, a national security official was fired last week for issuing two-year's worth of tweets in which he made insulting comments about Obama administration officials.

He is Jofi Joseph, who has been secretly tweeting under the moniker @natsewonk. Up until last week he was part of the team working on negotiations with Iran.

For the past two years he posted insults about the intelligence and appearance of top White House and State Department officials.

"I'm a fan of Obama," he tweeted, "but his continued reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me."

On another occasion, he wrote, "Was Huma Abedin wearing beer goggles the night she met Anthony Weiner? Almost as bad a pairing as Samantha Powers [U.S. Ambassador to the UN] and Cass Sunstein [Power's husband and former Obama aide]."

General McChrystal and Jofi Joseph. A short and not very impressive list.

Americans understandable frustrated with our government would like to see officials held accountable. And fired if they foul up in big ways.

Case in point--while Jofi Joseph is looking for a new job (which I assume he is unlikely ever to secure), Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius still has hers.

Considering the importance of the rollout of Obamcare and the political capital Obama has expended to get it approved, funded, and defended, considering the software disaster that is making it almost impossible for people seeking to purchase healthcare insurance on line to do so, shouldn't the person in charge be held accountable? And be dismissed?

Hundreds of millions were spent on the design of the Obamacare website and it is virtually useless. Shouldn't Sebelius have been monitoring the situation daily while it was being constructed? And since she obviously didn't, shouldn't Obama do what The Donald would do?

September 13, 2013--Remember Benghazi?

Wednesday was the first anniversary of the attack on a U.S. diplomatic consulate in Benghazi, Libya where our ambassador and three embassy staff were killed by terrorists.

What did and didn't happen there became a hotly contested issue during the 2012 presidential campaign;  but since that time--as with other unpleasant news that the public wants to move on from--the story about what has happened during the past 12 months to apprehend the killers has receded to the back pages. If even that.

Some would say that this attack was a response to direct U.S. military involvement in Libyan affairs that began in 1986 when then President Ronald Reagan ordered the air force, navy, and marines to bomb various targets in Libya in retaliation for Libyan involvement in the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by American troops. Targets in Libya included Muammar Gadaffi himself and members of his family. It is alleged that an adopted daughter of his was among those killed and that he was wounded.

Reagan did not seek congressional or UN approval for these raids or the targeting of Muammar Gadaffi. He simply ordered them.

Then in 2011, with UN sponsorship, but again with no congressional authorization, America joined with other nations to aid rebels who were seeking to overthrow Gadaffi. We took the lead in enforcing a no-fly zone and had B-1 and B-2 stealth bombers attack at least 100 targets in Libya.

The assault on the consulate in Benghazi and the murder of four American diplomats needs to be seen but not excused in this context. No matter the past history, it was a heinous act and should not be relegated to the back pages.

But this year, on the 12th anniversary of 9/11, the New York Times, on its back pages, published a follow-up story about our attempts to bring the Benghazi perpetrators to justice. And there is quite a story to tell.

We know who carried out the raid on the Benghazi compound. One of them is such a well-know, audacious Islamist terrorist that he has granted interviews to reporters. We also know his accomplices. We even know where they are located. We have drones positioned over them to keep them under surveillance at all times.

And they have been indicted for murder by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Bringing them to trial should not be that difficult. Libya would still be ruled by Gadaffi if it weren't for American intervention. For at least a few days after Gadaffi's overthrow and death, Americans were publicly thanked by Libyans and the stars and stripes were on display in parts of the country.

So one would think that our Libyan friends would round up the suspects and either try or extradite them.

This, though, is not happening.

Those clan leaders in the Benghazi province where the murderers live are not willing to do either. For one thing, Libyan government authorities feel they would be unable to bring them out of their villages since they are protected by well-armed militias. Militias, I suspect, who are using weapons that we provided to Libyan rebels.

And, then, these same officials say, the U.S. is now so unpopular--including because we are now considering an attack on Syria--that it would be politically unpopular for them to become allied in a matter of importance with the United States.

Also, though we are considering a drone strike to "take them out," to quote the Times, Libyan officials are also not too happy about that--

A number of Libyan political figures have expressed wariness that any unilateral military action by the United States, like a drone strike, would fuel popular anger and add a destructive new element to the uncertain security situation in Benghazi.

On the other hand, there was not much "popular anger" among Libyans when the U.S. took military action two years ago to help depose Gadaffi.

What a difference a year can make.

July 8, 2013--Obama Agonistes

Sad to say, but the Obama presidency is over.

Yes, he may get us involved in knocking out Iran's nuclear facilities and this could lead to another ground war in the Middle East. That would be both perversely presidential and dangerously consequential. But unless a crisis is presented to us, or there is one we ourselves engender, Obama no longer matters.

The cascade of events and his behavior that rendered him ineffective began in Benghazi last September when our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed. It wasn't the tragic murders that began to bring down Obama, but his administration's and his careless and perhaps deceitful handling of the narrative about what happened.

Then for at least a year, Obama's back-and-forth fumbling about what to do about the unraveling in Syria is a further example of his inability to have America exert influence or, more important, contribute to solving global problems. Admittedly, the situation there is likely intractable. The colonial and big-oil history of Western involvement in the region for more than 100 years, which included ignoring tribal and ethnic issues, is a classic case of proverbial geopolitical chickens coming home to roost.

Closer to home was and is the Internal Revenue scandal. "Scandal" is not too strong a term to describe the situation where the IRS, the most hated of the federal government's agencies, apparently targeted Tea-Party-related organizations seeking tax-exempt status. Once again, as serious as the deeds themselves was the ham-handed way in which the Obama administration handled the excuse-making and eventual staff changes.

Of course, perhaps worst of all, were the disclosures about the unfettered N.S.A. spying on American citizens at home and abroad. Yes, much or most of this may have been, is strictly-speaking "legal" and needs to be secret; but the casual way in which constitutional-scholar Barack Obama attempted to shrug off the facts that were emerging and the out-and-out dissembling, OK, lying by his national security team is beyond disappointing. And this gave his opponents, and the rest of us, further reason to be concerned about his ability to lead.

Speaking of his opponents, his domestic ones have effectively shut down any hope of legislative fixes to any of our daunting closer-to-home problems.

Because Barack Obama is inherently incapable of establishing personal relationships with congressional leaders of both parties--it is obvious that he even hates to have any of them over for a drink--do not expect comprehensive immigration reform. Tea-Party members in the House will assure that nothing comprehensive occurs.

Forget dealing with tax reform and sensible deficit reduction. Again Tea-Party Republicans are happy to do nothing and in that passive way see, to them, hated programs such as subsidized college loans and food stamps wither for lack of funding.

Forget doing much about climate change. Obama can make all the speeches he desires about this and other critical issues, but Republican opponents will continue to shrug him off.

Further, President Obama does not appear to have any international friends or partners. At the recent G-8 summit, when he attempted to sit down with Russian President Putin to talk about Libya and Iran, the pictures of them not relating to each other were worth many more than a thousand words.

And when the N.S.A. leaker revealed that the U.S. has been massively spying on our European allies, not one Western leader came to Obama's or America's defense. In fact, the head of the E.U. compared this outrageous behavior to what the Stasi did in East Germany during the Cold War.  To have the U.S. government compared publicly and angrily to the oppressive and barbaric East German communist regime may be hyperbole, but it is hyperbole engendered by Obama's passive behavior.

Then as a kind of piece de resistance, there was the announcement late last week, via a staffer, that the roll-out of Obama's signature, perhaps historic health care program's, Obamacare's implementation will be delayed for at least a year. This brought glee to Republicans who claimed, rightly, that the Obama administration is incapable of running even its most-favored initiative.

Lastly, at a very different level of concern, when my mother turned 105 last week, Rona attempted to get the White House to send her a letter of congratulations. She was able to get such letters from hapless George W. Bush when my mother's sisters Gussie and Fay turned 100; but my mom is still waiting for her letter from the current president.

Barack Obama may be gifted at delivering speeches and getting elected and reelected, but for running his administration, for leading the country, to acting effectively as the "leader of the free world," not so much.

So, it's on to 2016.

June 5, 2013--Riddle from the News

Here's one for you--

What do the following people have in common:

Susan Rice
Eric Holder
Barack Obama

A few hints--

Susan Rice is our ambassador to the UN. She was appointed to that post as a consolation prize when President Obama selected Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. Rice had served in Bill Clinton's administration on the National Security Council and then as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. When Obama ran for president, she did not support Hillary but rather became a major foreign policy advisor to him. Hillary Clinton never forgot this transgression and lobbied for Rice not to be appointed as ambassador.

Then, after Hillary stepped down as Secretary of State, Susan Rice became the odds-on favorite to replace her. So when it came time for the administration to send someone around to all the Sunday talk shows to explain what happened in Benghazi, Ambassador Rice stepped forward to enhance her political standing and, as it turned out, to take a bullet for the Obama administration. Particularly for the CIA and Clinton's State Department, both having screwed up by not protecting our consulate there and our ambassador to Libya, who was killed by terrorists.

When her talking points (prepared by the CIA and State) proved to be less than accurate, she became the sacrificial lamb and had to withdraw her name from consideration for Secretary of State.

Eric Holder was nominated to be Attorney General after Obama was elected president. Prior to that he too had served in the Clinton administration, as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno and before that was appointed to serve as a judge in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by none other than Ronald Reagan.

As Obama's AG he got into immediate hot water by allegedly being involved in the so-called Fast and Furious incident, a botched federal firearms sting operation that inadvertently allowed weapons to reach Mexican drug gangs. And for supposedly ratcheting back the investigation of voter fraud activities carried out by the New Black Panther Party. He is now knee-deep in a controversy about suppressing the press's ability to do investigative reporting about secret government counter-terroism activities.

About Barack Obama you already know everything there is to know--

He was born in Kenya, is a Muslim socialist, perhaps even the Antichrist. He may also be a member of that New Black Panther Party that his Attorney General refuses to prosecute. Also, he personally wrote or minimally edited Susan Rice's Benghazi talking points and wants to tell parents what their kids are allowed to eat for lunch in school. And, I almost forgot, he has unleashed the federal government to confiscate our guns and then send black helicopters to attack us in order to take away our few remaining freedoms.

So, what do Rice, Holder, and Obama gave in common?

One thing stands out--all are African American or, in Obama's case, African.

May 10, 2013--Hillary's Chappaquiddck?

Along with others on the political left, at the time, I thought the McCain-Graham-Romney attack on the Obama's administration's handling of the killings in Benghazi, Libya were (1) timed to derail Barak Obama's reelection campaign; (2) undercut Susan Rice's attempt to convince members of the Senate that she could replace the retiring Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State; and (3), more than anything else, it was an attempt to undercut Hillary's 2016 presidential camapign before it could even get started.

The level of rhetoric, I and many others thought, was so excessive that it was easy to doubt the seriousness of the criticism. To rant that the alleged "coverup" of what happened there that fateful day--September 11, 2012--was "ten-times worse than Watergate" was so preposterous as to make it easy to dismiss the McCain-led attack as pure political posturing.

Watergate had the president of the United States approving the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters; bugging phones there; and then, after his burglars were caught, Nixon orchestated the conspiracy to cover up the crime, including the payment of hush money. He was subsequently impeached and cited by the federal prosecuter as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

I thought the worst that could reasonably be said about what happened in Libya, and then in Washington, was that the administration didn't get the story straight before talking about it in public and sent Ambassador Rice around to all the Sunday talk shows with incomplete and perhaps inaccurate talking points.

McCain and company got one scalp--Rice's but didn't lay a glove on either Obama or Clinton.

That is until earlier this week.

Now both Clinton and Obama look as if they had better have a good story about what happened or the Obama administration's record will be forever blemished; and Hillary Clinton in four years will be a less-likely nominee, much less president.

As with Teddy Kennedy, every time he made moves toward the presidency, one event, one word made that hopeless--Chappaqquiddck. And now it may turn out that Benghazi will be the one event, one word that represents the tragedy that occurred on her watch that will haunt and make impossible Clinton's candidacy.

Earlier this week, three senior, credible career State Department officers may have blown the whole situation wide open, so wide open that even liberal Democrats, even Hillary enthusiasts--me included--will be forced to take a second and third look at what Obama and Clinton did and said in the aftermath of the murder in Benghazi of our ambassador and three of his colleagues.

Forget that they were foolish to expose themselves to mob violence and a terrorist attack on 9/11. No one working for the U.S government in the Middle East should be out and about on that day. Ever. No matter how well guarded.

But when word was transmitted to Washington that our consulate was under attack and the ambassador had been killed, surely, with two Americans still alive for a number of hours, there should have been some response by special-forces troops or, minimally, a series of fly-overs by F-16 fighter jets. I feel certain if four of them made passes at full throttle at 200 feet, the crowd attacking the consulate would have been so terrified that most would have run for their lives.

Even if it didn't work, it would have been worth trying and Obama and Clinton, and their scapegoat, Susan Rice, would have had a convincing story to tell and Americans, feeling distraught about what had happened, at the minimum, would at least have felt proud of our response.

Yet more minimally, Obama and Clitnon should have waitied to gather facts--forbidding leaks--and then told whatever the truth was. Even that there had been mess-ups for which they were responsible. There then would have been no need to tap dance and dissemble and the story would have been over in at most a week.

One lesson from the history of the American presidency during this media-suffused age is that it's always the explanation or, if you will, the cover up--not the deed--that bites. Nixon could have survived if he burned the tapes and told a version of the truth; Bill Clinton wouldn't have been impeached if he had said, "I did have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"; and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be getting skewered.

Americans are a forgiving people--we believe in, even love redemption stories--but we won't put up with being lied to. Nor should we.

May 9, 2013--Tea Party in Syria

I suppose, flushed with the delusion of success in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the two senatorial amigos, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have been turning up the heat on Barack Obama to get militarily involved in the civil war in Syria.

Even the justification is the same--as with Saddam, it is being trumpeted, Syrian president Basha al-Assad, possess weapons of mass distruction (WMDs) that he is deploying against his own people. They should recall that after we toppled Hussein, we found none and it may be that the evidence in Syria is just as ambiguous--yes, chemical weapons appear to have been employed but maybe not by Assad. It is emerging that it might have been the Syrian rebels who used them on themselves, perhaps to incite war mongers such as McCain and Graham, and to impel President Obama to too casually talk about how their use would be a "game changer" that crossed a "red line." Meaning . . . meaning, I am not sure what. And it sadly appears that Obama himself didn't have a clear plan in mind when he uttered these macho clichés.

McCain and Graham are on Senate committees that provide access to information about what is actually going on in Syria, and it is not a pretty picture. But just from reading a decent newspaper--if they don't have time to do their committee homework (after all it takes up hours and hours to appear on TV every day)--they would see that in addition to the hideous bloodshed, al Qaeda forces are taking more and more control of the fighting, and to arm them would only provide these jihadists with weapons to turn against us and our allies after they inevitably take over. Another lesson from Afghanistan--when we armed the Mujahdeen who were resisting the Russian occupation of their country, after Russia lost (a further lesson) they used those weapons, are now using them, against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The French ambassador to Afghanistan soberly said recently that as soon  as the western presence is further reduced (by 2014) things there will revert to Taliban control and girls and women will once again be forced to wear burkas. No wonder, then, that President Hamid Karzai desires to see the suitcases of CIA-supplied cash continue to be delivered so he and his family can sock away their blood money in Abu Dhabi. The good news for the Karzais--they have been assured by the U.S. government that these bribes will keep on flowing. One less thing for them to have to worry about.

Meanwhile, in McCain-Graham's other favorite Middle Eastern conflict, Iraq, we are seeing evidence of an incipient civil war. In this case, as in many other parts of the region, the roots of the conflict are religious and cultural, with faction pitted against faction.

In Iraq it continues, as it has for many centuries, to be Shiites versus Sunnis. Saddam's regime was run largely by the minority Sunni community through the Baath Party. When he was taken down, in spite of our efforts to see a diverse, democratic government replace his brutal dictatorship (at the time it was called "nation-building"), this policy pipe dream lasted for just a few years because all the while the majority Shia, having taken control, slowly and deliberately squeezed out the remaining Baathists.

So what in response have the displaced and discriminated against Iraqi Sunnis been up to? As we see in Egypt and Syria, they are turning for support to the most extreme Islamist elements who, if left to their own devices, would turn the entire region into a series of Islamic republics.

Let us not be naive about this agenda. Over time we will see the Muslim Brotherhood here; al Qaeda there. Jordan could be next and, who knows, maybe even Saudi Arabia after that, where the ruling dynasty has been paying off Osama bin Laden's Wahhabis in order to keep them from overthrowing the the House of Saud.

But the trajectory in this extremest direction is clear. And unwittingly we have been helpful in encouraging it by the very fact of our involvement After all, how would we feel, what would we do, where would we turn if a powerful outside force invaded and occupied our country? Don't you think that extremist elements in our own country--in the NRA or Tea Party, for example--would attempt to take control of the situation? I suspect the militias and dead-enders would be more effective in grabbing power than our political and economic elites.

If all else fails for McCain and Graham, there's always Benghazi. Who would have thought I'd be missing their third amigo, old Joe Lieberman.