January 29, 2019--The Wimp Factor

I'm sure you remember that during the campaign Trump frequently said it's all about "winning." 

He got in trouble when draft-avoider Trump said he didn't respect war hero John McCain because being shot down and held prisoner for years was evidence that he was a loser.

He told us if he was elected there would be so much winning that we'd get tired of winning.

Thus far, considering Trump's short list of accomplishments, I am managing to avoid winning fatigue.

He set this dialectic in motion so it is only fair that he is now being brought down because these days he seems to be doing a lot more losing than winning. And to be perversely consistent, he is looking tired of so much losing.

Catching myself enjoying his evolving fate I thought a bit more about this winning and losing business. Employing it as a prism through which to sum up how he is doing, vis-à-vis, say, Nancy Pelosi may not be the best rubric to be using.

During the 35-day government shutdown most of the stories in the media were about who was up (Nancy) and who was down (Trump). Most of the polling cited in the coverage focused on who was to blame (mainly Trump and the Republicans) and how Trump's approval ratings were faring (badly).

A special focus of much of this reporting was how Trump was being regarded by his Fox News followers, principally how he was being treated by conservative columnists and radio talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

Coulter especially got under his skin. This could be because among other taunts she called his (fragile) manhood into question.

On one occasion she said we thought we were electing Trump but instead "got Jeb."

In a weekend tweet, after Trump gave in to Pelosi, Coulter wrote--

"Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."

Trump was being savaged by his old friends who said that while seeking to build a wall he wound up with a cave. As in "he caved" to Nancy and the Dems.

One obvious common denominator--it has been primarily strong women who have made him crazy.

If true, maybe we should back off from some of the winning and losing talk. Especially if there are significant gender aspects connected to it. As there are. Do we want a hyper-riled-up Trump, worrying about his manhood, as we move though more and more perilous times?

War could be looming in Venezuela, Israel, and North Korea. And of course Syria, with us unwisely withdrawing, is in danger of further unravelment. All places where in wag-the-dog terms Trump might be tempted to have us intervene.

I'm not suggesting that Nancy and her supporters back off but just that we should continue to look for opportunities to weaken him politically (to "win") but not make too big a deal of the personal contest that is at the heart of the matter.

I have always felt that in many hotly contested situations winning without gloating is the preferred way to go. This is a glaring and frightening example.

January 3, 2019--Weakman Trump

Many on the left, even before he took office, concerned about his authoritarian inclinations, were fearful that Trump would intentionally morph into a Mussolini-style strongman. That he would become an American fascist.

That can still happen as panic sets in, as various investigations press in on him, as it becomes more and more apparent that he is totally corrupt, having committed serious felonies in both his personal and presidential life, a fully authoritarian Trump may emerge. 

But with impeachment and possible criminal indictments looming, instead of Trump the strongman we may see Weakman Trump. 

His signature initiatives, one domestic and two international are collapsing and to preserve them and himself he will be required to do more than compromise--he will need to capitulate.

As I write this he is in the early stages in the process of caving in to the new Democratic leaders of Congress. In the White House Situation Room of all places, they are witnessing Trump in the throughs of trying to wiggle out of the political responsibility for the unpopular government shutdown. 

The real reason for the shutdown has to do with Trump's highest-priority domestic campaign promise--not that the government needs to be slimmed down, but that he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. He is the one who linked the two with the shutdown as a bargaining chip that he gambled the Dems would trade away to fund their supposed favorite thing--more big government.

Two-thirds of Americans are unhappy with the shutdown and blame it on Trump while the same two thirds oppose Trump's "nonnegotiable" line drawn in the Rio Grande--his most conspicuous, base-pandering campaign promise--that he will build a "beautiful" wall and Mexico will pay for it.

If nothing else, Trump knows how to read polls and he sees that both the shutdown and the wall are losing political gambits. With the shellacking he took during the recent midterm elections and the current unpopularity of him and his policies, with 2020 looming, not to say a possible Mueller report, he is seeking a way to back down and save a little face. Usually it is the Democrats who cave. This time (thus far) they are hanging tough and enjoying the spectacle of Trump twisting in the proverbial wind.

Then there are the international messes Weakman Trump is desperate to get behind him. In at least two cases, both leading campaign promises--to withdraw from the Middle East, especially Syria, and to get North Korea to denuclearize--his impulsive decision to bring home all American troops from Syria is not working out. Some key Republicans have taken the lead in criticizing him and he has already agreed to allow the withdrawal timetable to swell from 30 days to four months. In fact expect those four months to stretch out further. 

And it is clear that the only deal Trump's real strongman friend, North Korea's Kim Jong-un, will agree to is not to destroy any of their nuclear weapons or delivery systems until the U.S. withdraws American soldiers from South Korea, ends joint military operations with our longtime allies, eliminates sanctions, and removes our nuclear weapons from the region.

A weakened Trump, if he wants to continue to take credit for making a deal with North Korea (and, politically, to feed his base he has to) he will need to do some fancy tap-dancing to cover up the caving that will be required to get out of this dilemma. 

My concern--often weak men are more dangerous than strong ones.

December 27, 2018--Trump Tower Istanbul

People are wondering why Trump is so responsive to anything the Turkish president suggests. 

Especially how, after only a brief conversation on the telephone with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump "impulsively" reversed U.S. military policy in Syria and decided to withdraw all American troops, who have been allied with the Kurds, our closest partner in the region, and with whom we have been decimating ISIS fighters.

So outraged about this whipsaw change, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, who was not consulted by Trump, resigned in open protest.

How could Trump so cavalierly reverse a policy that at relatively low cost in material and casualties ("only" five American troops have been killed in more than four years of fighting) how can such a policy be ended so abruptly after just a few minutes on the phone with Erdoğan, abandoning the field of battle to the Russians, Syria's Bashar al-Assad's butchers, Iran, Hezbollah, and ISIS, which still has at least 15,000 fighters in the region?

The answer is simple. As with so much that Trump initiates, it's all about money. Trump's money. In this case, how much he is making from real estate interests and who knows what else in Turkey, which, in Istanbul, includes a Trump Tower.

It is a twin-tower monstrosity. One tower is an office complex, the other a residential condo with 200 residences. It also includes a shopping mall with 80 shops and a multiplex cinema. These are the first Trump Towers built in Europe.

Most interesting, though, is Trump's principal business partner--

He is billionaire Aydin Doğan. He heads Turkey's largest conglomerate, Doğan Holdings, which includes ventures in energy, media, trade, and tourism in addition to a real estate empire.

As well known in Turkey as he is for his wealth and power is his tendency to evade taxation. For example, his media company, Doğan Media Holding, in 2009 was forced to pay a tax fine of about 3.8 billion Turkish Lira (nearly $2.53 billion dollars).

Sound familiar? Though this only begins to suggest how entangled Trump might be in things Turkish. Could it be that the Turks, whose intelligence operation is world class, like the Russians, who also seem to be able to make Trump dance on a string, have some goods on him?

It would help explain Trump's impulsive response to Erdoğan's "request" that he pull all 2,000 of our troops out of Syria so the Turks can focus on wiping out our erstwhile allies, the Kurds.

As prosecutors are wont to say, "Follow the money,"

December 24, 2016--Merry Christmas At the White House

It is Christmas Eve day and I am sure you are feeling cozy that our nation's First Love Birds are huddled together roasting chestnuts on the White House Yule Log's open fire.

This in spite of the fact that our president painted himself into a political corner only to get rolled by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who once called Trump a "god" but late last week referred to him as a "gutless douchebag." This because he was willing to trade away his Wall to the Dems so they could strike a budget deal and everyone could slip out of town.

So sure was Trump that things would work out that his wife and a few of his sons hopped on the First Lady's plane (why, by the way, do First Ladies have their own taxpayer-paid-for plane?) and lit out for 16 days (16!) of baking in the sun at their gaudy Palm Beach chateau, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump had to stay behind for politically cosmetic reasons--he couldn't be seen in shorts teeing off at one of his golf courses while nearly a million federal workers would not be getting paychecks.

Rush and Ann, these two Grinches spoiled his Christmas. Poor thing. 

So much so that Trump unleashed a series of tweets that suggested he was becoming even more unhinged. Saturday night, for example, he referred to himself as "the most popular hero in America" for withdrawing all our troops from Syria and "your favorite president." He does need to check the most recent polls.

But a funny thing happened on the way to that deal--after Limbaugh and Coulter slammed him for being weak, calling his manhood into question, he had no recourse but to pull the plug on the budget deal and cancel his golfing getaway.

Then, most interesting, a day after arriving, Melania had them gas up her plane and she flew back to Washington so she could spend Christmas with her beleaguered husband.

Unusual loving behavior for a couple where the wife won't hold hands with her husband in public and for a husband and wife who famously do not exchange Christmas gifts, unless Melania's renegotiating their prenup when Trump was exposed, in a manner of speaking, for having affairs with a porn star and a Playboy Playmate might be considered a gift that keeps on giving.

I suspect that daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared were so shaken by Trump's railing after Defense secretary Mattis summarily quit, refusing to endorse Trump's precipitous and dangerous decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Syria and effectively turn the country over to Putin, Iran, Hezbollah, and ISIS that they were so shaken that he was about to completely lose it if he couldn't make a deal to fund his Wall and shut down the encroaching Mueller investigation, that the children thought the situation was approaching 25th Amendment territory and that Melania better get back in DC and try to calm him down.


And so there they are, Donald and Melania snug in the White House which is full of Melania's blood red Christmas trees. 

Perhaps, to get away from reruns of White Christmas Trump can practice his putting on the White House green. The weather is forecast to cooperate.

December 20, 2018--Trump's Distractions

If you are wondering why Donald Trump is ordering the removal of all U.S. military forces from Syria, declaring ISIS defeated even those they aren't--up to 30,000 ISIS fighters remain--the answer by now should be familiar: this retreat, which he initiated without consulting Congress or his State Department or Pentagon, is to distract us from the Michael Flynn fiasco and the humiliating collapse of his own private family slush fund, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

You do have to admit that pulling the Syria withdrawal seemingly out of a hat is impressive in one way--who but Trump has our 2,000 troops on their radar screen ready to be brought home as a distraction from his political troubles. As of 5:00 am this morning on the New York Times webpage it is the lead story. Flynn and the Foundation are buried somewhere. He managed to turn both into one-day stories.

But don't mishear me--Flynn and the Foundation will contribute to bringing him down, especially when we get to see what is redacted in the Flynn charging memo: that he and Flynn openly conspired to play politics and strategic footsie with the Russians. As I have speculated here, Flynn was likely wearing a wire during some of those conversations, including in the Oval Office, and these tapes will turn out to be Trump's smoking gun.

And if you are wondering why Trump seems so adept, so quick in coming up with distractions of the Syria kind I suspect there is a simple explanation for that too--he has a pre-bickered list of them in his jacket pocket which he can pull out at a moments notice. 

(Ever think about why he never buttons his suit jackets? Not because they don't fit any more after he's gained at least 50 pounds since moving into the White House where the vanilla ice cream is available by the bucket, but to allow easy access to the distractions list.)

Investigative reporter that I am, from unnamed sources I have a copy of the list which I will share with you--

DJTRUMP DISTRACTIONS

Withdraw troops from Iraq

Withdraw troops from Afghanistan

Withdraw troops from Honduras

Withdraw troops from Japan

Withdraw troops from South Korea

Withdraw troops from Germany

Withdraw troops from all NATO countries

Withdraw troops from all bases in the United States
Start war with Honduras
Start war with Panama
Start war with Costa Rica
Start war with Mexico
Start war with California

Fire all Internal Revenue Service personnel

Fire all traffic controllers

Fire Ron Rosenstein

Fire Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Fire Kellyanne Conway

Fire Kellyanne's husband

Fire Jeff Sessions

Fire Rex Tillerson

Fire Reince Priebus

Fire Sean Spicer

Fire Jeff Sessions

Throw Sessions under the bus

Trow Spicer under the bus

Throw Kellyanne under the bus

Fire Wolf Blitzer

Fire Rachel Maddow

Fire Mika Brezezzzinzki

Throw Mika Bzezinzkiz under the bus

Throw Don Jr. under the bus

Throw Eric Trump under the bus

Throw Jared Kushner under the bus

Throw Ivanka under the bus

Throw Melania under the bus

Fire Omarosa

Fire Alec Baldwin

Fire Donald Trump

April 17, 2018--Fallout

I have been hearing from angry friends all morning. They are angry with me, actually most are furious with me for agreeing with the likes of Ann Coulter, criticizing the weekend missile strike in Syria.

One said, "So it's OK with you to let Assad get away with using poison gas to kill his people? Did you see those videos of children, babies gasping for their last breath as they vomited and soon died? I can't believe you wouldn't agree with using a targeted missile strike against his chemical weapons facilitates."

"The strike appeared to turn out well." I agreed, "We seem to have managed to avoid killing any Russians. If we had, who knows where this would have led."

"You're avoiding the issue," my friend pressed on, "Even in warfare there are rules and conventions. Combatants agree not to torture prisoners, engage in ethnic cleansing, or, in this case, not use chemical or biological weapons. There is the Geneva Convention that spells out a lot of this. I can't believe you would have not done anything. What Assad did was barbaric."

"I agree with that too," I tried to say. "I even agree with Trump that Assad is a monster. The last I read, he presided over the slaughter of about 600,000 of his own people. Hundreds of thousands more have been crippled and millions have become refugees."

"And, so, if it was up to you you'd stand back and watch this happen?"

"Though I wouldn't put it quite this way, I must admit I probably would. I would not get involved in what's happening on the ground in Syria, that godforsaken place, any more than I was in favor of invading Iraq or, for that matter, getting involved in Vietnam. Where more than 58,000 of our young people were killed, hundreds of thousands more wounded, and at the end of the day we lost the war. Haven't we learned anything from behaving like the world's policeman?"

"But a tyrant deploying poison gas on his own people is not only against the rules of war--what a concept, war having rules--but monstrous."

"I don't know how to put this," I said, "but what's the difference between using gas to kill babies and blowing them up with conventional weapons? Hideous barrel bombs full of shrapnel is seemingly the weapon of choice in Syria for Assad's air force. This is monstrous too so why not, using your logic, go after his air force and the factories where barrel bombs are assembled?"

"I can't believe your lack of anger or passion about this," my friend said.

"Maybe I've gotten to be too old and seen too much evil in my lifetime. That could be what has made me appear to be inured to barbaric behavior of this kind. About that, guilty as charged. But, still, I am not insensitive to this nor am I seeing your distinctions between poison gas and fragmentation bombs, and I am not convinced it's a good idea for us to try to chase down all the Assads of the world. Sadly, there are too many of them and I don't think it's our role to go after all of them."

"There's a point to what you're saying, but complete hands off when there are holocasts going is also not acceptable. I don't know how to determine where to get involved and when to ignore evil behavior, but a version of America First, or anything that smacks of that is not acceptable to me and shouldn't be to you. I know you were a young boy during the Second World War and were aware even then of Hitler's regime--including how some in your family died in concentration camps--and in later years you knew about other atrocities, but you're opting out now is not attractive or, to me, acceptable."

"I love you a lot," I said, "And respect you. I'll have to do some more thinking about this. One thing I won't concede though--all of this is very complicated and can lead to a lot of hypocritical talk and behavior."

April 15, 2017--America First?

Whatever became of America First? Donald Trump's nationalistic view that we have spent too much time worrying about what is going on in the world and not enough on America's needs? The need for more well-paying jobs, the restoration of manufacturing and extraction industries, infrastructure repairs, and sealed borders?

This was expressed legislatively and though the wielding of executive orders to contain immigration, lower taxes, reduce regulations, and of course "fix" the healthcare system.

But now we have Trump reversing himself in many regards very much including turning considerable attention to foreign affairs.

Most dramatically, he had President Xi of China spend two days bonding with him at Mar-a-Lago, sent Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to the G-7 foreign ministers' summit and then on to Moscow for meetings with his Russian counterpart and a two-hour encounter with President Putin. And there was the missile strike against Syria.

And now North Korea appears to be occupying him. He is attempting to get China to "take care of the problem," all the while moving an aircraft carrier and its armada close to North Korean waters.

Usually it is not until their second terms in office that presidents turn their attention to international issues. To polish their legacies. Unless, like Johnson and Nixon they inherit a war. That by definition gets them involved with other countries.

I suspect Trump has shifted his focus off shore because he has come to realize that to concentrate on domestic issues means having to deal day-by-day with Congress. And we know what that means--a nightmare. Even with a Republican majority in both Houses we still have gridlock. At the moment not a bad thing. That's what happened to the campaign promise to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. With this effort collapsing he came to realize that with the domestic agenda there is very little "winning."

So Trump is pivoting, not from one domestic issue to another or compromising about the details of what might (or might not) replace Obamacare or be included in a tax reform package, but he is now shifting his attention from the U.S. to NATO,  China, Russia, North Korea,  and Syria.

It is in the international realm as commander in chief that he can exert virtually unchecked power. In other words, in world affairs he can behave as a CEO. Which is how he regards himself. And it is there, equally important to him, that he can reap the praise of even Democrats and the mainstream media.

He castigates the media, claiming it deals in fake news; but, let's be honest, would he prefer to hear positive things from Fox News or the New York Times?  The answer is a no-brainer.

April 13, 2017--Bromance Kaput

The New York Times lead story on Wednesday said it all--"Trump's Sudden Shift on Russia Leaves Heads Spinning."

It referred to the White House's accusation Tuesday that Russia is engaged in a cover-up of the Syrian government's deployment of Sarin gas on its civilian population. This accusation was based on an alleged declassified National Security Council report on the attack which also included a rebuttal of Moscow's assertion that insurgents were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Trump's people claimed that the Syrians and Russians released "false narratives" to mislead the world community about their own complicitous involvement.

What happened to all the flattering references to Vladimir Putin? What happened to the possibility of a new partnership if Donald Trump were elected? Why does it feel as if the Cold War has been resumed? What are all the accusations and saber rattling about?

As in the past I am looking for the simplest explanation that answers the most seemingly-puzzling questions.

Mainly, what's in it for Putin to allow or encourage its Syrian ally to use poison gas and why is Trump so suddenly accusing Putin of being an international war criminal? What happened to the bromance?

To answer these questions requires us to explore each of their likely motives.

For Trump it is to try once more to deflect and overwhelm the on-going investigations about Russia's hacking the 2016 presidential election to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign in an attempt to help Trump emerge victorious.

Trump's pinprick bombing of a Syrian airfield, his movements on the world stage, especially the recent meeting with the Chinese president Xi and Secretary of State Tillerson's Moscow visit did in fact for a day or two deflect attention from the Trump campaign team's possible collaboration with the Russian hackers.

But Xi is back in China and the focus has shifted again to what did or did not happen during the campaign. Ominous for Trump is the new story that one of his senior foreign policy advisors, Carter Page, with FISA authorization, is being investigated by the F.B.I. to see if he was or is a covert Russian operative. With former NSC director Michael Flynn seeking immunity, the Page investigation is a potential bombshell and it is thus understandable that Trump would want to change the subject. The best way at the moment to change it is to demonologize Putin.

Putin has a much more complex agenda. He is seeking nothing less than the destabilization of the Western world and the resulting return of Russia to its prior Soviet glory. This process is greatly assisted by direct Russian interference in democratic elections from France to Germany to of course the United States.

This process of Sovietization is also facilitated by helping to bring about chaos in Western societies. So it should be no surprise that Putin's Russia would ally itself directly and indirectly with murderous dictators such as Bashar al-Assad, rogue states such as Iran, and terrorist groups including Hezbollah.

Trump wants to survive; Putin wants to dominate. Their tangled relationship serves both of their purposes--Putin having the goods on Trump effectively neutralizes him and Trump as intentional disruptor thrives in a roiled world.

Here, though, is what to worry about--

We do not want to see either of them become desperate. In addition to historical forces we are talking about two very fragile people. Individuals with fragile egos can be particularly dangerous if they have powerful tools or wield catastrophic weapon systems. Obviously, both Putin and Trump do.

Which brings me again to North Korea--

If Trump's survival strategy, his desperate and increasing need to deflect the search for the truth about his possible involvement with the hackers, if that strategy includes looking for opportunities to have the tail wag the dog, the most  fearsome example of that is not more targeted raids on Syria but a nuclear encounter with North Korea. If that were to occur, and I fear we may be headed in that direction, who any longer would be asking what Paul Manafort knew-and-when-did-he-know-it or on which Russia payroll Michael Flynn or Carter Page are to be found.

We would have our eyes on other matters. Mushroom clouds, for example.

April 7, 2017--Trump at War

A few quick observations--

The missile strike that President Trump ordered last night had at least four purposes:

(1) To punish the Assad regime for its poison gas attack on Syrian civilians. This happened on the 100th anniversary of the beginning of  our involvement in World War I where chemical weapons were for the first time widely used.

(2) To try to get the Russian Connection monkey off Trump's back. He bombed Russia's only real ally in the region in part to demonstrate he was not Putin's puppet.

(3) To demonstrate to the Chinese leadership that we are not to be messed with. Is it just a coincidence that Trump ordered the missile strike on the very day he was hosting the Chinese president? President Xi had a front row seat to observe an emboldened Trump in action. Trump was signaling that if you don't take the lead in containing North Korea, he will.

(4) Perhaps most important to Trump, this was to boost his approval ratings. They have been hovering in the mid 30s. Expect to see a 10 point jump by the weekend. Americans always rally around their president when he takes military action. But, as in the past, those numbers head quickly south after things calm down if nothing positive is happening. Just ask George H.W. Bush.

(5) And, of course by bombing Syria he distanced himself from President Obama who famously drew a red line in the sand but then backed away from enforcing it. He can now claim to be muy macho.

December 30, 2016--Bad Cop, Good Cop

Not that any of this is necessarily intentional, but Barack Obama finally deciding what to do to "punish" Russia for hacking into our electoral process, could offer Donald Trump an opportunity to reset relations with them. With "them" meaning Vladimir Putin.

Here's how it could work--

Clearly no-drama-Obama wanted nothing to do with this, looking to run out the clock on his presidency by not getting entangled in any last minute messes. If he was eager to retaliate, he would have done so weeks ago and not required relentless prompting and criticism by members of Congress from both parties.

And, of course, his move yesterday to expel 35 so-called Russian "diplomats," who are in fact spies, was at least equally motivated by a desire to poke president-in-waiting Donald Trump in the political eye as another form of retaliation for managing to get under even unflappable Obama's skin by dominating the news and not leaving the stage to Obama alone who is entitled to a un-interfered-with final bow.

As David Sanger reported in this morning's New York Times, Obama's move may effectively "box" Trump in.

What is Trump supposed to do with this in his desire "to make a deal" with Putin? Three weeks from today tell the Russians never mind, your 35 spies are welcome to return to the United States?

Republican leaders such as John McCain who hate Trump and are chomping to reset the Cold War while Democratic hawks such as Chuck Schumer are calling for more sanctions would have strokes if Trump were to reverse Obama's actions because, as he put it in his statement about this, it's "time to move on to bigger and better things." Whatever that means.

Trump wants a clear path to a deal with Putin but may now be flummoxed by a cagy Obama, having the last laugh and reminding the upstart that a presidency isn't over until it's over..

So here's the possible Trump trump move--

It's dawn the morning after the inauguration. Trump is as usual not sleeping. Rather than sending out a tweet, he somehow manages to restrain himself and rings Putin on the phone. After a few affectionate exchanges he says to Putin that he has an idea for a deal that would benefit each of them.

"Let's move quickly to reset things before the anti-Russians set in motion by bad-cop Barack Obama, who finally showed some cojones, pushes both of us into a new bankrupting arms race.

"Let's make the centerpiece of that resetting a solution that the two of us impose in Syria. Forget Turkey, they are a ridiculous country and not trustworthy allies. Let's take a chance and trust each other. Your economy is in a state of collapse and the congressional parties here are working to dominate the agenda even before I shake the confetti from that stupid parade out of my hair.

"You are looking to assert power and with us again become a dominate nation, even though, I don't have to remind you, your economy is the size of pathetic Italy's.

"What do you say, Vlad? Let's make a deal."

Who know? It just might work.

On the other hand, Putin might be loving things just the way they are and is playing Trump like the old KGB officer he was.

November 11, 2016--Trump's Line In the Sand

Sunday's presidential debate hit an all-time political low. It was as if we were watching an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. How appropriate was that considering what spawned Donald Trump.

At one point I said to Rona that I hope they had security guards nearby because I think Trump and Clinton were about to attack each other. Physically. Forget refusing to shake hands. I was thinking mud wrestling and biting in the neck.

There was a sense of menace with bulky Trump towering over Hillary, looking as if he was stalking her and about to pounce.

But in truth it looked like that largely because of the camera angles and the choice of perspectives and images the director selected to put on the air. There were the foreshortened shots that made it appear that Donald was right on top of her whereas those shots from the side revealed that less menacingly he was a more benign six feet away.

Talk about pictures being worth more than a thousand words and how there are in these choices political consequences that derive from camera angles and control room decisions.

Then post debate on line and in print there was the flood of fact-check results.

Since among other things I try to keep an eye on reporting by the New York Times, here is a little fact-checking of the fact-checking.

Priding itself as the "paper of record," one would think that the Times in the spirit of journalistic integrity--especially when it comes to something objective such as fact-checking--would scrutinize about the same number of facts alleged by each candidate since both did quite a bit of, how shall I put this, fibbing, OK, lying, to use a word they both were comfortable hurling, would check about the same number of facts. Say ten for Trump and eight for Clinton. This would give the appearance of being fair and balanced though with a wink indicating that Donald told more whoppers than Hillary.

It might surprise you then--though not necessarily--that the non-partisan Times fact-checked 22 of Trump's assertions and only five of Hillary's.

To offer a flavor of the accuracy, let's take a look at Trump's charge that Hillary Clinton was still serving as secretary of state when President Obama drew his famous "line in the sand" when it appeared that Bashar al-Assad was about to use chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels.

Here cut-and-pasted from the Times' is their fact-checking--

Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton of being there for President Obama’s “line in the sand” in Syria. She said she wasn’t.

Trump is wrong.

Donald J. Trump appears to be referring to the “red line” (not “line in the sand”) episode in Syria. At a news conference in August 2012, President Obama said if President Bashar al-Assad of Syria moved or used “a whole bunch of chemical weapons,” it would be “a red line” that would change his calculations about not intervening in Syria with armed force. 

A year later — after Hillary Clinton was no longer in government — there was a chemical weapons attack in a rebel-contested suburb of Damascus, killing as many as 1,500 people. The United States government issued a report saying “streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence” as proving that Syrian government forces were behind the attack, meaning Mr. Obama’s red line had been crossed.

So Trump gets a pants-on-fire for mixing up "line in the sand" and "red line." Fair enough--but he got the essential truth right--Clinton was still in office when Obama issued his feckless threat. Presumably, with Clinton's endorsement.

From the Pulitzer-Prize winning website, POLITIFACT, here is what they have to say about the same fact--

Basically, Obama drew the chemical weapons "red line" in August 2012 when Clinton was secretary of state [my italics]. But by the time the White House confirmed that Assad crossed it about a year later, she had been replaced by John Kerry.

The Washington Post came to a similar conclusion.

This is not just academic nitpicking but goes to the heart of any analysis of Hillary Clinton's experience and accomplishments as secretary of state.

Forget Trump--he's on his way next month to a well deserved thrashing. But the fact that Clinton frequently misrepresents her record should be of concern. Especially to those of us who support her. I

And, yes, the New York Times also needs to take a close and honest look at itself. We need it to be at its journalistic best and Hillary Clinton, out next president, needs to be forceful, visionary, and honest.

August 12, 2016--Russia Is Winning the New Cold War

It is now generally acknowledged that Russia's intervention in Syria has, from a Russian perspective, been effective.

Putin's Russia, unlike Obama's United States, is now seen to be the leading and most influential great power operating in the region. Russia's military and political support for Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has effectively ended the rebellion against his government, and so now, since they made this possible, he is "owned" equally by both Russia and Iran, Assad's major patrons.

The United States is now relegated to the insignificant sidelines, unable to figure out which rebel faction(s) to support and is also seen to be impotent in regard to efforts to impose "red lines," topple Assad, or defeat ISIS.

Even in Second Cold War terms, Russia's modernized military is more than a match for ours even though we have outspent them on the development of smart weapons designed for asymmetrical warfare. This represents another miscall by the CIA and our military intelligence operatives--as during the First Cold War when they failed to notice that the Soviet Union's economy was collapsing under the pressure of attempting to compete with us weapon-system-by-weapon-system, this time around they failed to alert us to the power and sophistication of the new Russian military.

Most revealing, as Russia flexes new muscle to protect its borders as well as reduce the power of the United Staes and especially Western Europe, is the new cynical feel-good relationship developing between Russia and Turkey.

Just nine months ago a Turkish jet downed a Russian military aircraft and though it looked as if a hot war might break out between the two nations, in spite of this, earlier this week Turkish president Recep Tayyip-Erdogan was in Moscow to talk with President Putin about putting aside the past and establishing a closer relationship.

They both have skin in the regional game (and both leaders within their own countries need propping up) so going to war with each other would not be in either one's best interest.

Thus, out of mutual need, Turkey is raising questions about its role in NATO--something Putin enthusiastically welcomes--and Russia is helping to cut off the military aid the U.S. is supplying to the Kurds who are eager to carve Kurdistan out of land they live in in Syria, Iraq, and most geopolitically important, Turkey.

Erdogan is blaming America for the recent coup that failed to topple him and is suspicious about our agenda regarding the Kurds, while Putin seeks to destabilize NATO and push its forces, very much including those of the United States, back from its western borders.

Thus the appearance of these unlikely bedfellows. And their mutual interest in the candidacy of Donald Trump who is confounding our freight policy establishment as well as that of our NATO allies when he questions the on-going role of NATO, particularly why the U.S. should underwrite a disproportionate portion of its budget.

A more credible Republican candidate would have a field day with these failed polices of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

July 26, 2016--Hillary Quiz

Some claim that Hillary Clinton, with the exception of a few of America's founders--Thomas Jefferson, for example--is the most "qualified" nominee ever to run for president.

This assessment more than anything is based on her resumé. It is indisputably impressive.

She was First Lady for eight years and had real responsibilities. She did much, much more than preside over congressional wives' teas. Among other things, in a quasi-official capacity, she visited 82 countries.

Then for eight additional years she was a U.S. senator from New York.

In 2008, she almost won the Democratic presidential nomination.

After Barack Obama was elected, as part of his "team of rivals," she served for four years as his Secretary of State.

Even George H.W. Bush, who also had a very impressive professional history, didn't compare.

So by these resumé criteria, Hillary Clinton, on paper, is about the most qualified. Ever.

But before coming to that conclusion, there is another way of thinking about "qualified."

Not by a list of job titles and honorary degrees but by an accounting of accomplishments.

On this basis, Hillary Clinton as most qualified? Not so sure.

But, if you are inclined, convince me otherwise by taking this snap quiz.

Rate each of the following on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being indictable and 10 worthy of the Nobel Prize.

As First Lady:

Health care reform? OK, this one is too easy.

As Senator:

Support for the Children's Health Insurance Program? (CHIP)
Vote to authorize invasion of Iraq?
Other?____________

As Secretary of State:

"Resetting" relationship with Russia?
Keeping Russia from invading and annexing Crimea?
Containing North Korea's nuclear weapons program?
Overthrowing the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya?
In Syria, attempting to remove Bashar al-Assad from the presidency?
Overthrowing the Mubarak government in Egypt?
Seeing the election there of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Stabilizing Iraq?
The emergence of ISIS?
Containing/defeating ISIS?
Limiting China's expansion in the South China Sea?
Resolving the Israeli-Palistinian conflict?
Leading the effort to reach a nuclear deal with Iran?
Managing her State Department e-mails?
Other? (Anything but Benghazi) ____________

Of course we could do the same thing with Jefferson. Also on scale of 1-10:

Declaration of Independence?
Ambassador to France?
The Louisiana Purchase?
University of Virginia?
Sally Hemmings?
Other? ____________

April 25, 2016--Dateline: The Rest of the World

While waiting for election returns from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maryland, and Prince's autopsy findings, a new Cold War is breaking out. This time not only with Russia but also China. And, who knows, maybe with Saudi Arabia.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is beginning to sound and look like the old Soviet Union with economic dislocation fueling an aggressive foreign policy to both reannimate dreams of a restored Imperial Russia and as a chauvinistic distraction for the Russian people who will soon likely be needing to line up for hours to buy a loaf of bread or a liter of vodka. But while in line they will have their nationalistic dreams to sustain them.

Circuses but no bread.

Rather than acting like a European partner, which we saw signs of for a decade or so, Putin is leading Russia's military buildup and deploying forces on numerous fronts in an attempt to secure what it sees as its sphere of influence and to provide opportunities to flex military muscle in order to poke the US and Western Europeans in the eye, partly as a response to the economic sanctions we and our European allies have imposed on Russia in retaliation for its expansionist moves in Ukraine.

And, while they're at it, they've taken to buzzing U.S. warships in open waters

Under Putin's leadership they have of course reannexed Crimea, threatened various parties in the Balkans, and have become actively involved in Syria, deploying an entirely new mix of smart weapons whose existence has caught Western observes by surprise.

What happened to all those clunky Soviet tanks and misfiring missiles? Clearly once again avoiding CIA detection, right under the noses of our various surveillance agencies, the Russians seemingly overnight on the ground and in the skies in Syria are putting on display a whole range of new, sophisticated 21st century weapons systems.

So much for recent efforts under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to "reset" relations with Putin and Russia. He and Obama can't even talk to each other. Even Stalin and Roosevelt got along better!

Meanwhile, in Asia, also with thoughts about a restored Dynasty, President Xi Jinping of China, also in part to distract the Chinese people from a cooling economy and to deflect thoughts from rampant governmental and corporate corruption (which directly involves his own family), Xi has been investing heavily in modernizing and rapidly expanding China's military capacities and reach.

New fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and a modern submarine fleet are among recent acquisitions. In addition, as an extension of its imperial moves in the South China Sea, encroaching on what we impotently claim to be international waters, and pushing toward South Korean and Japanese waters, under Xi, China is creating a series of new islands which already include air strips and naval facilities. We talk and talk and threaten and threaten while China dredges and dredges and builds and builds.

Perhaps most ominous is Russia's and China's moves to modernize their nuclear weapons. Making warheads smaller and smaller so that they can be mounted on advanced intercontinental missiles with vastly increased capacities to avoid detection. In retaliation, the Obama administration, has quietly begun to do the same for our aging nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Ironically, Barak Obama who came to office proclaiming that nuclear disarmament was his highest priority, and thus quickly received the Noble Peace Prize, is leaving office engaged in a restored full-tilt nuclear arms race with Russia and China.

And also while we have been obsessing about our presidential election and other entertainments, in response to the bold nuclear deal we struck with Iran, Saudi Arabia is talking quietly, in response to that, of developing its own nuclear weapons.

Sic transit . . .

August 25, 2015--Intimacy of Evil

In her remarkable book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt writes about the "banality of evil." How Adolf Eichmann, though he was responsible for the transport system that herded millions of Jews to concentration camps and their ultimate slaughter, was not in the ordinary sense actively and directly evil, but was a bureaucrat who, in a perverse sense, was carrying out orders as expeditiously and efficiently as possible.

For discussing Eichmann in this way--as a banal functionary and not a passionate anti-semite or a fanatical ideologue--Arendt was widely criticized as not holding him sufficiently responsible for his deeds--that he was, she was interpreted as saying, just doing his job. That his actions were "ordinary."

Quite the contrary--she saw his version of evil in a particularly horrific way--how it was manifested in a very average man which left the suggestion that there is a thin human line between "normality" and there ability to commit unspeakable evil. That someone so ordinary, so inconspicuous could participate so dispassionately in one of history's most heinous collective crimes.

I thought--how different is the evil being perpetrated today by ISIS.

We have been sad and outraged witnesses to their public beheadings and other barbaric crimes against innocent people in the lands they have overrun and subjugated to their merciless rule.

Just last week, in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra, ISIS warriors slaughtered the keeper of its more-than-2000-year-old archeological treasures. Treasures considered so noteworthy and historically significant as to be listed a UNESCO World Heritage site.

To ISIS, since the temples and magnificent artifacts predate the advent of Islam, were built before the prophet Mohammed was born, they are the work of infidels and need to be brutally eliminated as do any people who do not embrace or follow ISIS's version of Islam.

Making an emphatic point of this, they hauled 83-year-old Khalid al-Asaad, the keeper of the antiquities for more than 50 years, into the town square and, after ordering all citizens to come forth as witnesses, according to the report in the New York Times, "cut off his head in front of the crowd" and then "his blood-soaked body was suspended with red twine by his wrists from a traffic light, his head resting on the ground between his feet, his glasses still on."

This is not the banality of evil.

This is not the impersonal imposition of slaughter.

This is not evil propagated from a bureaucrat's office or delivered from 30,000 feet.

This is not using current technology to force victims into "showers" and once there dispense with them by the administration of the latest in poison gases and then with bulldozers pushing the mounds of bodies into open trenches where the machines bury the dead and the evidence.

This is not evil where no one is touched. Where everything is by schedule and assisted by state-of-the-art technology.

ISIS's is the intimacy of evil. Not its banality.

These evil-doers hold victims in their arms. With their own hands they hold up victims' heads. And then, in that ugly embrace, cut off their heads. And then place them carefully on the ground, making sure eyeglasses are carefully arranged.

A friend here who is essentially a pacifist wants "to nuke" them. Minimally place enough American "boots on the ground"--even 200,000 if necessary--to kill them all. Kill them all.

I get it.

June 1, 2015--Remapping

Over breakfast at Balthazar late last week with a well-travelled friend, despite our attempt to be optimistic about things, he couldn't resist asking what I thought was happening in the Middle East.

"You need to bring that up while I'm still enjoying my scone?" I said as playfully as I could.

"Well, in fact there may be things to feel good about."

"Really?" I was skeptical.

"Put in perspective."

"In perspective?" I was still skeptical.

"Very long term perspective."

"Again, really? How does that work?"

"Maybe what's happening has to happen. If we think about the long sweep of history, I mean."

Beginning to get was he was suggesting, I said, "I guess you could push me to make a very-guardedly optimistic case for the region if you gave me maybe a 100-year time frame to project things onto."

"Look," he said, "I'm British and am old enough to have seen massive changes in our position in the world. I had family members who worked for the Colonial Service in South Asia. When India was in effect a British colony. Some of of the change was bloody others more peaceful."

"More than 'in effect,'" I said. "Look, you're as old as I am--and that's pretty old--and though I don't remember from personal history about the changes in your empire as the result of the American Revolution, they were profound."

"Very amusing," he said, "The  very old business."

"The results of the Revolution changed the map for a large part of the Western Hemisphere. And led to even more change when France made its Louisiana Territory available for purchase."

"And later you follows grabbed from Mexico a large part of what is now the American West. California very much included."

"Yes as a result of the Mexican War during the 1840s and don't forget ten years or so after that the Gadsden Purchase which allowed us to flesh out our southwestern border. And then later still there was the bargain-basement purchase from Russia of Alaska."

"So project onto that what is going on right now in the Middle East."

"For some years I've been thinking about that and writing about it on my blog--how if one looks at the map of the current Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia for that matter, we see the remnants of big-power colonial domination and the national borders that were imposed on Arab people, as well as Persians, Jews, Turks, and others after, for example, the First World War. Newly constituted or created countries that still exist. On paper at least. Countries without borders that take history or culture or religion into consideration. So, once the colonial powers backed off--and that includes us in the U.S.--things began to unravel."

"That's an understatement," my friend said.

"So perhaps what we're seeing is a remapping. Is that your optimistic scenario?"

"For me as well very-guardedly optimistic. Yes. That's what I'm thinking."

"I've been thinking and saying that too. How what we are seeing is an assertion on the ground of various Islamic factions seeking violently to settle scores and slough off the boundaries that they have been forced to live with by the Western powers. Borders that ignored culture. And, through the support and cynical use of dictators such as Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and the Saudi royal family, among others, attempted to tamp down and contain nationalistic strivings and the natural forces of history."

"So in your remapping scenario," my British friend said, sipping his morning tea, "you agree that this is something that has to happen? That's inevitable?"

"Yes. In history, there has been a lot of remapping. That which is the result of warfare where the victors impose new boundaries. The American, French, and Russian Revolutions are examples as is the fall of the Ottoman Empire during World War I."

"Other examples are the result of the invasions of exploding empires--the Roman Empire and Islamic Caliphate that dominated most of north Africa and western Europe. And of course our British Empire. The one where the sun never set."

"We could go on. The point being that what gets left behind or imposed as the result of these powerfully aggressive movements result in unnatural affiliations where people of very different backgrounds are forced to think about themselves as Iraqis or Syrians or Libyans. Big picture--there is no such thing as an Iraqi. Nationalities of this kind have been constructed by conquerers. This goes against the history of these peoples where they think about themselves as Sunnis or Shia or Kurds, not Iraqis. And as a result, what we have wrought are powder kegs throughout the region waiting for some spark to ignite them. And we're seeing those sparks all over the world. Very much including the emergence of ISIS."

"Thus my optimistic thought," my friend said. "As I said, perhaps there has to be this movement toward the reestablishment of cultural borders. Maybe even a few that are fluid since some of the people who live in the region are nomadic. Also, in some cases this may not even involve the concept of 'country' or 'nation.' And this of course doesn't mean that peace will break out. There will still be disputes and incursions but hopefully not at the level of all-out warfare."

"Sounds good to me, though, if you're right, I won't be around to see it."

"There you go again about being old. In the meantime, can I treat you to another cup of coffee and maybe some toast?"

February 13, 2015--Best of Behind: The Middle East? Hands Off

This seemed pertinent in June 2014 when it originally appeared and feels even more so today as President Obama is asking Congress to retrospectively authorize military strikes against ISIS Islamists and many in the House and Senate are pushing back against what some feel is the next step to our getting more directly involved in Syria and northern Iraq where ISIS poses an existential threat--

As President Obama feels the pressure to provide military assistance to the collapsing regime in Iraq, he and we should step back and review the last 2,500 years of history. Just a few pertinent highlights!

The major lesson is that no outside power, from Alexander the Great of Macedonia to the French and British imperialists, from the Soviet Union and now the United States, no one has been able to impose their will on the region.

All interventions, all attempts to subjugate proud and defiant peoples have failed. And worse--have reverberated back disastrously on the invaders, colonizers, and occupiers.

After 330 BC Alexander never recovered; the British and French colonial powers after the First World War never recovered; the Soviet Union collapsed and never recovered; and the United States lost treasure, power, and influence in the region and I suspect will also not recover.

So what to do now?

The right answer is nothing.

We should get out of the way and allow the people living there figure out their own futures, very much including their own borders.

If we could impose a sane and just plan of our own that would endure, I would consider supporting it. But the long reach of history teaches that any attempt to do so is doomed to fail and, worse, will only make things worse.

Look at the current situation in Iraq. The Sunni jihadists have already overrun a third of the country, a country that was arbitrarily constructed at the end of WW I. From the videos showing ISIS's triumphant advance, while the so-called Iraqi army discards its uniforms and attempts to blend in with the benighted civilian population, we see the invaders already in possession of American military equipment that also was abandoned by the Iraqi army.

This was reminiscent of the experience in Afghanistan where the U.S., still entangled in the Cold War, armed the Mujahideen who were fighting the invading Soviets and, after defeating them (which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union), morphed into the Taliban which proceeded to overthrow the Afghan government and then turned its weapons, the ones we supplied, on us when we invaded at the end of 2001. And does anyone doubt that as soon as we finish leaving Afghanistan the Taliban will once again take over?

Sounds like current-day Iraq to me.

Seven years ago, presidential candidate Joe Biden was ridiculed when he said that Iraq should be allowed to devolve into three countries--Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, and Turkistan in the north.

He was right.

In fact, he could have advocated similar things for the rest of the region, from at least Tunisia in the west to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east.

Few of the countries in that geographic span have cultural borders--Iran (formerly Persia) and Egypt are perhaps the exceptions--but rather ones drawn for them by various conquerers and occupiers.

For centuries, for their own strategic and economic purposes, dominant Western powers have attempted to contain and control the essentially tribal people who live in this vast region. Since the end of the Second World War, country-by-country this has been unraveling. And at an accelerated pace for the past four or five years. Recall the Arab Spring of 2010.

The emergence of jihadist and terrorist groups--ISIS is just the most recent example--feels especially threatening to our national interest. But it may be more dangerous to attempt to continue to contain these aspirations and energies than let to them play out.

The genie of various forms of liberation cannot be stuffed back in the bottle. It is much too late for that.

It may be less risky to step back and allow these contesting forces to work things out. We may not like this idea or the potential outcomes; but, in reality, do we realistically have the ability and resources to impose an alternative scenario?

Do we see ourselves intervening on the side of the Shia-dominated government in Iraq allied with Iran's Revolutionary Guard? As unlikely, even as preposterous as this may sound, it is being seriously discussed.

Frightening as that prospect is--very much including the blow to our national ego--it represents another reason to back off. If there is to be fighting, and of course there is and will be, at least it will be focused within the region, internecine, and less directed toward us. That could be truly in our national interest.

October 20, 2014--Operation Hesitation

I am pleased to report that I will now be able to sleep through the night because our current military operation in Iraq-Syria at last has an official name--Operation Inherent Resolve. 

Since Desert Shield (our war with Iraq to expel Saddam's army from Kuwait), Desert Storm (George H.W. Bush's war with Iraq), and Iraqi Freedom (George the Son's preemptive invasion of Iraq to finish the job he felt Daddy left unresolved)--I've been curious why our wars need names.

What's wrong with World War I, World War II, or the Korean War? Did our war in Vietnam have or need a name other than the Vietnam War? These seem descriptive enough.

Yes, various operations in wars since at least WW II had names--Overlord is perhaps best known. It was the code name for the allied invasion of Normandy, culminating on D-Day, June 6, 1944.

In truth the invasion didn't need a code name. Everyone who cared knew forces for a massive invasion were gathering in England. And no one was fooled by wondering what this Overlord was about. The Nazis knew the allies were coming. The most important thing they didn't know was where the cross-Channel invasion would occur, and having a code name didn't do anything to help hide the specifics of the plan. For some reason Eisenhower must have liked the feudal sound of Overlord. Perhaps that's how he regarded himself.

Come to think of it, why was June 6th called D-Day? Wiki says all invasion have d-days with the "d" standing for day or date. Get it? Nothing special.

But in regard to Operation Inherent Resolve, according to the New York Times, for three months the Pentagon has been hassled by the press to come up with a name for the bombings and drone attacks we have been inflicting on the Islamic State (or ISIS or ISIL).

Secrecy is not an issue otherwise the Pentagon wouldn't have shared the eventual code name with the waiting world--

The name Inherent Resolve is intended to reflect the unwavering resolve and deep commitment of the U.S. and partner nations in the region and around the globe to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community.

There was no concurrent mention of the fact that one key "partner nation," Turkey, geographically in the middle of the fighting, has thus far not only refused to become involved but has impeded our efforts, in effect holding us up for ransom--there will be no Turkish involvement, they say, until the U.S. agrees to directly support rebels fighting to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

Under pressure from the press I can just imagine the high-level discussions that went on for three months in the Pentagon and White House Situation Room while struggling to come up with an appropriate name for the operation.

"How about Operation Isolation?" the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff offered, all puffed up.

"I like that sir," his adjunct chimed in. "It's clever. Even includes a pun. ISIL, isolation. If I may say so, sir, very clever."

"This is a nasty business. No place for puns," growled the Chief of Naval Operations. "My boys are flying dangerous missions and--"

"Sorry to interrupt Chief," the Army Chief of Staff interjected, "But that's boys and girls." He sat back in his leather chair, self-satisfied, smiling.

"Correction accepted," conceded the Chief of Naval Operations. "We do have some wonderful gals flying those planes. Lives at risk. Just like the boys. Times have changed"

"How about Operation Hesitation," chuckled the Commandant of the Marine Corps. His colleagues glared at him. "You know, the CIC [Commander in Chief] was hesitant to get involved with those ISIS-ISIL folks. It's another quagmire. We all know that. he got beat up in the press pretty bad for indecision. Had to have those fellas' heads cut off before he got his ass in gear." No one made eye contact.

"Not that I blame him. Been there, done that. So maybe for once we should come up with one of these names--why we even need them I'll never know--that tells it like it is. Operation Hesitation could be the first." He puffed on his unlit pipe.

"Yeah, and we should have called Iraqi Freedom Operation Slam-Dunk," said the Vice Chair, all agitated.

"Or," offered the Commandant of the Coast Guard, "Operation Preemption," getting in on the act.

"Let's get serious guys. That's not going to fly," the Chairman admonished his colleagues, "We have to come up with something he'll go for. That suits him. You know, something academic sounding. A name with class." He rolled his eyes, feeling he had more important things to do.

"I have it," exclaimed the Chief of the National Guard, "How about Operation Enduring Resolve?"

"Huh?"

"I'm liking this," the naval commandant said, "The resolve part especially. Very Marine. Like Sempre Fi, but in English. Like it. Licking it."

"Your boys aren't even involved," the Chief of Naval Operations pointed, "No boots on the ground this time around. At least that's what he said. Just Mark's flyboys and my guys. And by guys I mean guys and gals of course." He winked.

"But I'm not liking the enduring business," the Chairman said, "Feels ominous to me. If I take your meaning it sounds like we'll be at this forever. I mean, if it's enduring. I'm not sure we'll be able to sell that."

"Good point. So how about inherent?" the Chief asked, "We want to indicate we're taking this seriously, that it's not going to be a slam-dunk. Going to take some time."

They all seemed to like that.

"I'll pass it along," the Chairman said, "Let's run it up the flagpole and see if it flies."

The rest is history. Or will be history.

October 1, 2014--60 Minutes With Professor Barack Obama

So he went on TV and told Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes that the situation in Syria is fraught with contradictions--"I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance."

Yes, he actually said that. Much appreciated Professor Obama.

Among the contradictions, he acknowledged, is the fact that we (really, he and his administration) did not know in advance that ISIS (or ISIL as he obstinately insists on referring to them) was going to turn out to be such a threat to the Middle East and ultimately us.

After 9/11 and the failure to connect the dots that should have warned us about an imminent, cataclysmic threat to the U. S. homeland, one would have thought, with that dark lesson in mind, that something as elaborate as ISIS's emergence and, yes, remarkable barbaric capabilities, would have shown up on someone's Oval Office radar.

Al Qaeda was a relatively small band of terrorists incubating in an under-scrutinized part of the world (the forbidding mountains on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border) compared to the thousands of ISIS jihadist warriors arming and preparing themselves to operate even captured American tanks in plain sight right in the middle of the civil war in Syria.

All one needed to do was go to the Internet to learn directly from ISIS itself what they were about and were intending to do. Undoubtedly and appropriately humiliated, Obama told Kroft that we (he) blew it and so now we're involved in another war in the Middle East that we can't win that will soon cost billions and the lives of more of America's finest young people.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, literally closer to home, there was that embarrassing and dangerous event at the White House. An armed intruder jumped the inadequate and unguarded fence, ran across the lawn, entered the ground floor through the unlocked North Portico, raced left to the East Room, and then, still alluding the Secret Service, entered the Green Room where he was finally tackled.

It would not be my favorite thing to have seen him shot well short of the mansion, but allowing him to make it into the building, where, if he knew the layout better, he could have raced up the stairs to the living quarters, I'd opt for the security forces taking him down.

The Secret Service is far from what it used to be--which might serve as a metaphor for much of our federal government and, alas, much of America--but this latest incident is so pathetic as to render one almost speechless.

We learned in the process that, with Obama family members in residence, in 2011 a sniper hit seven windows in the living quarters, firing armor-piecrcing bullets from hundreds of yards away and that that information was withheld from the public and the Obamas, including the distressing fact that it took White House security forces four days after the attack to even know it occurred!

Under questioning by members of Congress yesterday, Julia Pierson, director of the Secret Service, took responsibility and promised that it won't happen again.

Well it already did happen again, and on her watch. There was the shooting incident in 2011 and then the intrusion 12 days ago. I call that happening again.

And another thing that will happen again is that she will not be fired just as no one was fired for the Veterans Administration or IRS scandals or for that matter the Obamacare website rollout fiasco.

As our professor president said, ours is a contradictory land and what we are seeing are contradictory circumstances.

September 22, 2014--Willy, Ben, Me: Ray Price

Willy said, "If they didn't have the pictures there would be no issue."

"Of what?" Ben asked. "What are you talking about?"

"About that football player who punched his girlfriend."

"She was his fiancée and is now his wife," I said.

"What difference does that make?" Willy said.

"What's your point?" Ben asked, sounding annoyed, but smiling, "My coffee's getting cold."

"It's a simple one. How do they put it about pictures being worth a thousand words? Well, in this case, they're worth lots more than that. If it weren't for the film he might not even have been suspended. Or maybe at most for just those two games. As he originally was."

"It is a terrible thing he did, Ray Price."

"You'll get no argument from me. But what really has me upset are all those cameras."

"All those cameras?" Ben was puzzled.

"You like the idea that you go into the supermarket--Hannifords--and they have cameras all over the store?"

"That's to cut down on thefts," I said.

"And at the gas station too," he pressed on, ignoring me. "And where you live probably on every street corner." He was referring to the fact that we live part of the year in New York City.

"To tell you the truth," I said, "I've given up on having any privacy whatsoever. Store cameras, street cameras, and, as with Ray Price, elevator cameras. They even put them in ours in New York. And, of course, it's even worse with the ability to read your emails and listen in on your phone conversations. And I'm not only talking about the government. All those hackers too."

I winked at both Willy and Ben who are quite conservative and frequently rail about getting the government off our backs and out of our lives. Many times I half agree with them.

"Those street cameras down in Boston helped the police track down the marathon bombers before they could go to New York and do more harm. How do you feel about that?" Willy asked.

"I guess I feel OK about that," I said. "But it surprises me to hear you saying this, considering you're both pretty conservative and I would think wouldn't want to have your privacy invaded like that."

"But it's only pictures," Ben said."I wouldn't be OK with this if the pictures also had sound so they could listen in on my conversations."

"That also surprises me," I said. "You're all right with the pictures but only if there's no sound? I don't get the distinction."

"Freedom of speech. First Amendment," he said, thinking that was enough to say to make his point and convince me that the videos without sound are not a problem.

"What about the right to privacy? Though," I quickly added since they know the Constitution, "that's not specifically stated in the Bill of Rights."

"Maybe, but about the pictures," Willy said, "and about that football player, my point, beyond the privacy business--which I also have concerns about--is how having pictures of something can make us do things very different than if something happens out of sight and is not on film."

"Say more," I said.

"Well, take those two Americans who recently were beheaded. The fact that the ISIS people videotaped it and put it on the Internet caused us--Obama really--to change his policy. Whatever one thinks about him or those ISIS people," he spat, "we know Obama didn't want to get directly involved there. And I agree with him about that. But because of the pictures he had no choice."

"You're comparing what happened to those two reporters being beheaded to Ray Price?" I said, "Come on Willy, get serious."

"I'm not comparing what they did but the fact is that there wouldn't be the same reaction, the big brouhaha, if what they did wasn't captured on film. With no pictures Price would have gotten his slap on the wrist and the terrorists' story would have been in the news for just a few days, of course after speeches condemning them and so forth. But there wouldn't be this crisis with Congress and the public clamoring for us to go after them. Including into Syria and, who knows, with American boys on the ground before too long."

"We've seen that before," Ben said, taking a deep breath. "And we know where that got us."

With that depressing thought we lapsed into silence and turned back to paying attention to our coffee.