January 24, 2019--Trump's Day

Peter Baker of the New York Times reported yesterday about what Trump's presidential life is like now that he is ignoring his domestic and international agendas while focusing exclusively on how to manage the politics of the government shutdown.

On Tuesday, for example, the president's public schedule listed only two things--his daily intelligence briefing (we know from other sources that he does not read the written summaries and spends perhaps 10 minutes listening to his National Security Council briefer before drifting off in boredom) and lunch with Veep Mike Pence (how long does it take to gobble down a Big Mac or two?)

Baker sees this to be a bad thing and cites what critics, for example, are saying about Trump's cancelled trip to Davos. It's the place where governmental and business high rollers gather annually to hobnob and come away feeling good about themselves and each other after, for a couple of days of not talking about exerting more power or making more money, they commit themselves to also doing some good in the world. 

Others are saying that this is also traditionally the time of year when a few days before the State of the Union address presidents and their cabinet members float ideas for new domestic programming to see if thy will fly before inserting them in the speech. Like what Trump's plans for infrastructure would look like.

But do we want Trump to be more engaged in the world and domestic affairs than he currently is? That would be not engaged at all.

The last thing Trump wants is to have to share the world stage with the likes of Jami Dimon of JP MorganChase or Bill Gates. He showed up at Davos last year for half a day and after insulting a few people, including Angela Merkel, headed off to Mar-a-Lago. 

Loner Trump doesn't do group.

And thus isn't Davos the last place in the world we'd like Trump to be? Or worse, at a NATO meeting? And shouldn't we be happiest when he is not saying anything about his domestic agenda? 

In Trump's case less is much more. 

I'd be thrilled if he locked himself away in his bedroom all day to watch Fox&Friends and reruns of The Apprentice. Like it says in the Hippocratic Oath, so he would do no harm. A totally disengaged Trump is thus the way to go. 

Therefore, I wish the New York Times and CNN would stop chiding him for doing so little since Trump doing nothing should be the plan.

December 11, 2014--Torture

Regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee's report about the C.I.A. and its use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," this from Peter Baker of the New York Times--

The C.I.A. maintains that the brutal interrogation techniques it used on terrorism subjects a decade ago worked. The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that they did not. And on that, at least, President Obama is not taking sides. 

Even as Mr. Obama repeated his belief that the techniques constituted torture and betrayed American values, he declined to address the fundamental question raised by the report: . . . Did they produce meaningful intelligence to stop terrorist attacks, or did the C.I.A. mislead the [Bush] White House and the public about their effectiveness.

My view, controversial among liberals, is that this is in fact the fundamental question--does torture work?  

Not who said what to whom or informed or misinformed the White House and the public because if torture does lead to actionable intelligence that could save American lives--like knowing in advance about the 9/11 attacks--we should be having a very different discussion.

That discussion should be about, must be about, what techniques work and how to use them going forward in a way that, though ugly and brutal, is both justified and applied as humanely as possible. 

But even if there is no "humanely as possible" that should not thwart the use of these techniques. Confronting the brutal and ugly methods of the other side, the enemy, an enemy not playing by any recognizable set of rules, may mean that to defend ourselves against terrorist acts we too may need to employ the ugly. As indeed we are and have been doing from our origins as a country until this very day, often, frequently unacknowledged or publicly monitored. Like authorizing bombing raids and drone attacks that we know will kill children--"collateral damage."

And that discussion needs to be lead by an engaged President, not one, like Obama, who, as Baker reports, continues not to want to become deeply involved in daunting issues of contradictory complexity. In his White House the buck doesn't appear to stop with him. At times I even wonder if there is a buck.

If torture works, and though I doubt it does, we still need to boldly ask and answer that question because what would one prefer--not to torture someone who could tell us in advance of an about-to-occur attack on American or on our bases, troops, or citizens overseas; or should we authorize the use of effective techniques, no matter how loathsome, to forestall that.

To answer this authoritatively is way above my pay grade, likely yours as well; but how should we respond to this impossible question?