Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA Director and a man whom I admire greatly, was on TV this morning and he was asked if he agreed with Donald Trump when he said multiple times that Obummer created ISIS. Hayden replied, to the surprise of the questioner, that yes Obummer's premature departure from Iraq, his "red line" back-down with Syria, and his Libyan fiasco ... all helped to spawn ISIS out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. However, he did say that the way Trump communicated this fact was impolitic to say the least and he was not happy with it.
General Hayden was then asked about his recent statement, along with 49 other former intelligence officers, that he would not be voting for Trump ... see: VOA News Story. His response was also encouraging ... that he would not be voting for Clinton either. He also added that neither he nor necessarily the 49 other signers were Republicans. Yes, most served in Republican administrations, but that doesn't mean that they are political. He claimed that he has tried to be apolitical ... I think for good reason.
How do I feel about Trump's way of communicating? Yes, he is often immature and impolitic at his rallies ... and I wish he was more like Hayden. However, he is being heard by vast swaths of the voting public who need these simple messages that speak directly and plainly to them. Trump will never be William Buckley or David Brooks at the podium. But, then again, he will never be nuanced to the point of being taken both ways ... like most politicians. And, in some respects, this is his strength ... perhaps his only strength ... possibly why he is so resistant to changing his approach. For this straight talk, no matter the outcome in November, one must give him credit.
He clearly will live or die as a populist.
Like a lemming,over the cliff you go. How about researching all of the bad things Trump has done in life. If you think he;s for the little guy, like you, you have a big surprise coming. Do away with the death tax he says. That's fine if your estate is north of $5-mil. Etc. etc. and so forth, as the King of Siam would say.
ReplyDeleteFiling for bankruptcy is legal ... pay for play is not. I know, if Trump is elected, he will disappoint me. However, at the end of his term, we should still have a country. With Hellery, it is doubtful. Now who is the lemming?
DeleteHow do you imagine we will "not have a country" after a term of Hillary?
ReplyDeleteThere is no limit to what U.S. assets the Clinton Foundation would sell to enemies and friends alike in exchange for "donations". Not just the Lincoln bedroom this time, but perhaps the Washington Monument? Certainly our hegemony.
DeleteThis is just risable bullcrap and you know it. Have you seen the latest clip of Mr Frump arguing with himself. He's a clown.
DeleteYou want to elect a fascist clown?
Make that Lucrezia Borgia ... instead of Joy Behard ...
DeleteSell our hegemony??? How? The post WWII, post Soviet collapse left the USA as the sole hegemon. Hegemony is expensive and (literally) taxing. As an organizing principle of national social order, hegemony wears thin when it evolves into fearful militarism.
DeleteSmall example ... Hellery signed off on selling 20% of U.S. uranium production to Russia (probably to go to Iran) in exchange for $500K BillyBob speaking fee in Russia plus a huge donation (amt. forgotten) to the Clinton Foundation. Oft repeated tale.
DeleteOwning the company, owning the production rights, holding product and exporting product are separate issues. See http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Does-Russia-Really-Own-20-Of-The-US-Uranium-Reserves.html : "Still, it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases, or to suggest that any amount of the uranium will end up in Iran. The current licenses – held by the US-based subsidiaries and approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission – do not allow exports from any U1H US facility."
ReplyDeleteFurther CharityWatch presents a very strong and transparent rating to the Clinton Foundation: https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
I do agree that the Clinton quid-pro-quo is terribly obvious. But this brings to the surface one interesting tidbit: Does Putin like the business acumen of the Clintons better than the bro-mantic braggadacio of Trump?